Disability and murder: victim blaming at its very worst

When we hear that a murdered wife had a disability, we can find ourselves a little less horrified. But whichever way we dress it up, it remains a story of domestic violence, writes Stella Young.

By now you'll have heard the story of Geoff Hunt, the 44-year-old grain farmer who shot and killed his wife and three children before committing suicide last week. The community of Lockhart, the Riverina town where the Hunt family lived, is understandably reeling from this crime. Imagining the victims in their final moments has been unavoidable for many. For those who knew the Hunt family, their grief must be immense.

Let me be clear. When I say "victims", I am talking exclusively about Kim Hunt and her three children, not Geoff Hunt. He is the perpetrator of this crime, not a victim. And yet much of the media coverage that has unfolded has clearly tried to paint a different picture.

Reporting of this crime has focussed disproportionately on a car accident in 2012 that resulted in an Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) for Kim Hunt. Her recovery, from all accounts, has been long and difficult. Some media have reported that police believe "it was more than likely" the ongoing strain caused Geoff Hunt to "snap".

In the same report, a close family friend is reported to have said:

He was super, super patient. He would help her get out of the car, he would hold her arm. You couldn't get a better bloke. The most gentle, considerate bloke ... a pillar of society.

When we hear of a crime like this, we quite rightly recoil in horror. And yet, when we hear that a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability, we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified. As though her status as a disabled woman gives us a little more empathy towards the perpetrator of violence. It's victim blaming at its very worst.

If a man walked into a classroom, pulled out a gun and shot three children and a teacher, before turning the gun on himself, we'd call it a massacre, and we'd call him a vicious murderer.

Yet when a man walks into his own home and shoots his three children and his wife before turning the gun on himself, he's remembered in the press as a loving family man who was under some strain.

Whichever way we dress it up, this is a story of domestic violence. Of a man who violently killed his wife and three children. He is not the victim of either this crime, or of the accident in which Kim Hunt was injured two years ago.

Many reports have neglected to mention that although recovery from an ABI can be slow, it's not impossible, and Kim Hunt was reportedly recovering well. She returned to work in an education role at the local hospital in which she had previously worked as a nurse in April this year. And even if she hadn't recovered, if she'd remained entirely dependent on support and care for the rest of her life, her murder still isn't excusable.

Women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence at the hands of a partner, and this violence can be more severe. Additionally, there is also evidence that women in rural or regional areas are more likely to experience violence. Research has pointed to narrowly constructed notions of masculinity that emphasise traditional gender roles and the physicality of rural men's labour, plus patterns of alcohol consumption, as risk factors pertinent to regional and remote areas.

Both women with disabilities and women living in rural or regional areas are less likely to report domestic violence for many of the same reasons: fear of not being believed, lack of access to services, isolation, and lack of access to transport and telecommunications. Kim Hunt fit into both of these categories.

Perhaps the media should be focussing on the factors that make women vulnerable to violence and raising awareness of how we can help, rather than using disability as a scapegoat yet again.

For other examples of this, we need look no further than the reporting of the Oscar Pistorius trial. Assertions that "psychological trauma" caused by having his legs amputated when he was 11-months-old and living as an amputee led to him shooting and killing Reeva Steenkamp. Further, some reports have said that the failure of his (now deceased) mother to comfort him at the time would have added to the trauma and caused him to suffer ongoing anxiety in adulthood.

Yet again, the blame for violence committed by a man is placed squarely at the feet of a woman.

Is disability relevant in the lives of individual people? Of course it is. But it must never be treated as an excuse for violence. And an overemphasis in reporting does us all a disservice.

As a community, we don't know as much as we should about domestic violence. It too often happens behind closed doors and is never reported.

Who knows whether Geoff Hunt was the "loving husband and father" the press are painting him as. Perhaps, until this incident, his behaviour deserved those words.

Equally likely is that this episode of violence was not the first. It's likely the only people who know for sure are dead.

Stella Young is a comedian, television presenter, disability advocate and was formerly editor of ABC'sRamp Upwebsite. She is an ambassador for Our Watch. View her full profilehere.

Harquebus:

Sim:

16 Sep 2014 12:17:18pm

"When we hear that a murdered wife had a disability, we can find ourselves a little less horrified" - not true at all. What may be true though is this: when we attempt to understand the strain Geoff Hunt was under since his wife's accident, we view the situation as more 'tragic' than 'horrific'.

Colmery:

16 Sep 2014 2:14:34pm

Pleased to see people instantly react against the notion that a disability somehow mitigates the horror of that family tragedy.

Published opinions affect us when they are close enough to a balance point that we wrestle internally over. In this case the opinion was so far off balance point as to be ludicrous to the audience it reaches.

How we influence each other in the public sphere is a critically important issue at a time when participation in politics is at an all-time record low (Libs and ALP have about 0.3% as members).

Disengagement from the difficult process of finding consensus is a collective laziness that ultimately causes civilisations to crumble. his is so because as power concentrates, so to it becomes more vulnerable to corruption.

Greed, corruption and the violence they foster are the ultimate evils that defeat human kindness. Australians of conscience need to focus on the health of our system of government as their highest priority, before it's too late.

Rhonda:

16 Sep 2014 4:03:55pm

"It's likely the only people who know for sure are dead."

Exactly right Stella, so it's best that you don't pass judgement, when you do not have all the facts. While I've always admired your passion for advocating for people with disabilities, it's always best to acknowledge there are some disabilities which remain hidden from the public view.

I'm referring to psychiatric disability. In Qld, mental illness has only been officially recognized in the Disability Act in quite recent years. However, some of those who work in the sector, still retain some of those earlier entrenched attitudes. That's on top of dealing with the stigma dished out by people in the community, including (apparently and disappointingly) from people with a visible disability - such as those in wheelchairs.

Now, just as you Stella, are not on top of all the facts, neither am I. However, perhaps another way of looking at the tragedy, without wanting to pass any kind of judgement, is this:

A much-respected woman has a tragic car accident. In spite of all the odds, she recovers, as a combination of her inner strength and determination to recover, her love of her children and the TLC administered by her husband - a farmer (who also continued to raise and care for their three children).

Prior to the accident, that farming area had suffered severe drought and then two severe flood events. All extremely trying situations to the farming community, where this family lived.

The accident would have made a huge impact on that family, especially on the woman involved - her extreme pain, her losses of independence, her ability to be a mother to her children, her ability to work (financial reward/interaction with others). The majority of (if not all) persons undergoing this, would understandably not be the 'easiest in the world to get along with'. This woman may have been one of that majority.

As everyone should know, when one income is lost in a household (coupled with possible financial farming losses due to previous weather conditions), even further extreme pressure is brought to bear. So, a myriad of extremely stressful conditions could have prevailed.

After two years, the woman returns to work - an amazing feat in itself. But at what possible cost? Perhaps she endures incredible pain in the process - not surprising. Her worn-out, worried, possibly unknowingly deeply depressed husband cannot bear to see the pain his wife is enduring, as a result of his perceived (emphasis on perceived) failure as a provider, just finally snaps and does the unthinkable?

The story may never fully be told, but to point the finger as you are doing Stella, is simply wrong.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 6:23:51pm

I won't disagree with you Rhonda that your version of events could have been exactly right.

The thing is, the disability is being used by some media reports as a sort of mitigation to the crime, just as Stella says. You can disagree with her that it was or wasn't a mitigating factor, but the fact it is being presented as such is not really easy to debate.

If he had a perfectly able-bodied wife but the drought drove him to kill her and his children then suicide, would you feel as sympathetic for the struggles that drove him to it?

I doubt it.

Right or wrong, as Stella says, when we hear he had a disabled wife we start to think "well, I can see why maybe he snapped."

Rhonda:

"Right or wrong, as Stella says, when we hear he had a disabled wife we start to think "well, I can see why maybe he snapped"."

For a start, Stella is making assumptions here and she has also passed her own judgement, with 'no correspondence entered into'.

It may never be known what caused this tragedy, unless the suicide note reveals some relevant information and certainly no one commenting here, including the author (and myself), can possibly be in a position to pass judgement. I was merely presenting another possibility about the circumstances.

I do not condone for one minute the outcome, it's tragic, it's not fair - but unfortunately, life is seldom fair and it is full of uncertainties.

Heretic:

You?re quite right that we can?t know the circumstances surrounding this case and the factors which caused this man to lose control but none of them could possibly exonerate him from his crime.

Though trends are changing, it?s well-known that women internalise their trauma, while men tend to externalise. And so, this highly stressed man grabbed a gun and murdered his family before killing himself.

Research suggests that intimate partner violence precedes 70 per cent of all cases of ?familicide? (research presented at a seminar, ?Men Who Murder Their Families?, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/230412.pdf).

The presenters concluded that ?Prior domestic violence is by far the number-one risk factor in these cases.? Perhaps our soul-searching for answers as to the ?why? of this murder-suicide case shouldn?t focus on the drought, the floods, the partner?s disability or, as in other cases, on the infamous provocation plea but, rather, on the social mores which foster male-instigated domestic violence.

Rhonda:

16 Sep 2014 10:47:11pm

As I said to Ann (above), I was not making excuses, I was presenting another view, other than the author's - whom I think was incorrect in saying the murdered woman's disability had altered people's judgement, with regard the husband's actions.

I also think that the author's failure to acknowledge circumstances other than her 'cut and dried' judgement, in spite of knowing nothing of the actual facts, other than the outcome, shows her up as having a narrow, intolerant view.

The end result is a family is dead - an absolute tragedy - and we should not condemn that about which we have no facts.

GregL:

16 Sep 2014 8:24:06am

Taxed, I agree with you. Stella's comments are too generalised. I too am horrified at what happened and there can be no excuse for this act of violence and I think a lot of people would fit into that box.

While some people may try and excuse the actions because of the perceived "pressures" that Hunt was under that does not mean that the act is downgraded by all. Those who promote Geoff Hunt as a victim are those close to him and their comments were made close to the actual act and I think as a result of disbelief that the person could engage in such an act. But over time the often perception changes. The same thing occurred in the Baden-Clay case, some in his family simply refused to believe that hew as capable of such an act. Hunt, like Baden-Clay could have walked away but chose violence instead and in the end it was about them not the deceased.

With Pistorious the defence tried to shift the reasons for his behaviour but I am sure that the vast majority of people saw that this was not a viable justification for his actions. The judge made it clear that she was seeing the case in the light of the evidence according to law not from through the prism of his relationship with his mother.

This is not about disability, it is about male violence against women and children and should remain as such.

James in Brisbane:

16 Sep 2014 9:59:24am

Actually Jack, it's quite easy to characterise all deviant behaviour as irrational, there was a good piece by a psychologist a while ago arguing quite logically that the whole issue of not guilty by reason of insanity was arbitrary, crimes are either rational or they're not, the line between one and the other is subjective and artificial, and can be drawn easily to include all violent crimes or none of them.

Applaudanum:

16 Sep 2014 11:14:30am

An excellent point, James. It's an issue that vexes me as well.

We often hear that a perpetrator could not have been rational in order to commit whatever nasty crime being discussed. But how far do we take that? Is it the case that all murders are committed in a moment of temporary insanity or irrationality? Surely if the perpetrator was sane and rational the murder wouldn't have happened, right?

So then we can go down the list; rape, assault, kidnapping, burglary etc, all the way down to exceeding the speed limit by 5 km/h, littering, and the late return of library books. Sane and rational people don't need to do any of those, so they all must be done in the fog of temporary insanity or irrationality. It seems that we either accept that an individual rationally and wilfully chose a course of action against another individual(s), and/or the law of the land, or we absolve them of all responsibility no matter what they do.

Eagle:

16 Sep 2014 1:59:05pm

Um, yeah - we do make that distinction, but we don't absolve people of all responsibility. If someone kills another for money, we view them as acting more willfully than someone suffering from auditory or visual hallucinations due to mental illness. People who attack another out of fear or as a result of abuse are treated more leniently by the law than those who do so out of spite. Both acts are 'rational', but are different morally, and are treated different accordingly.

This comment is an excellent example of presumptuous and logically fallacious reasoning. The reason we have courts is due to need the to consider a specific incident separately. 'We' don't take anything 'far', we consider them on a case by case basis, not on the fantastical slippery slope you've created.

We don't function on a binary, where we either accept rational intent or absolve all responsibility. This is a laughable example of a false dichotomy taken to it's ultimate extreme. We consider charges on a spectrum, sentencing on a spectrum, and culpability on a spectrum. Attitudes like this border on absolutist thinking.

Margaret:

16 Sep 2014 7:28:22pm

Jack, at age 67 I am old enough to remember when every instance of a man murdering is wife or ex-wife and/or their children was always described by the media as a tragedy. It was a great leap forward when it started to be described as murder.

Lorn:

16 Sep 2014 2:28:52pm

GregL, I really think the article is talking about exactly what you are saying. She is saying that the act should not, and has not been downgraded. What the OP also talks about are risk factors for women in general when it comes to domestic abuse. And in part it IS about disability, as disabled women are more likely to suffer abuse and not be able to report it.

And I do have to disagree that it is a mental health issue. Nothing here has suggested the husband was suffering from mental illness. And it is not a tragedy except for the victims. It is a murder, and a crime. We should view it as such. It is an atrocity that we should stop attaching sentimentality to. There were victims, there was a crime, there was a murderer. It is just a shame the murderer escaped the law by suicide.

Rhonda:

Lorn, you are writing here as though you are completely abreast of all the facts. Unless you lived in that household and witnessed what occurred, you have no credibility in making your claim.

A point that seems to be overlooked by some commenting here - and I speak from personal experience - living with someone with a disability would sometimes try even the 'patience of Job'. Without trying to self-promote, I am known for my patience and caring nature, but honestly there are days when limits are sorely tested.

Dean:

16 Sep 2014 9:46:22am

Couldn't agree more Taxed. The author has been careless with the use of the word 'we'. I was horrified and I remain horrified. There was no excuse and there is no excuse for what this man did. As someone who watched my son die in agony almost 4 years ago it is beyond me how anyone could point a gun at a child and cause them agony by shooting them dead. It is beyond me how anyone could shoot anyone. This act was vicious and I am offended by the author's assumption that 'we' have found ways to excuse him. If 'we' means the media then go ahead and point the finger but she should not make assumptions that the rest of us have blindly followed the almighty pronouncements of the media.

lathimaro:

Rhonda:

16 Sep 2014 4:26:40pm

To Ed and lathimaro, while your self-righteous indignation might give you some brownie points among those who hold similar views, your outright rush to judgement about something of which you don't have all the facts, causes me to hope your numbers are few.

Peter the Lawyer:

16 Sep 2014 5:34:14pm

it is not a matter of having all the facts, Rhonda.

I think what Ed and lathimaro are saying is that Stella is wrong to suggest that 'we' somehow will think the murder of a woman with a disability something less heinous than the murder of a woman without a disability. There is no evidence that 'we' would come to any such conclusion.

I think that Ed and lathimaro are telling us that in fact the community's opinion is the opposite of what Stella has asserted. That is certainly true of the law which loooks at crimes against the weak as more heinous than crimes against the strong.

Rhonda:

16 Sep 2014 11:10:25pm

Apparently you didn't read my post Peter (not a good look for a 'lawyer') - I was making the point that Ed and lathimaro - regardless of their correctly not supporting Stella's "we" - have, I will repeat, rushed to judgement on something about which they don't have all the facts.

Comments such "Anyone who guns down their wife and 3 children is an inhuman monster"/"Anyone who harms defenseless (sic) children and a person with a disability is more than a monster" verify that.

cal:

16 Sep 2014 10:57:51am

There is a lot going on in this tragic case, but the least significant thing is that a tiny number of people in the community might think less of the crime of murder because one of the victims had a disability.

Dazza:

Not only was the wife brutally murdered, but also the three children as well!

Whether or not the wife had some sort of disability, the horror of this does not lessen.

I'm not sure of Stella's motivation in this article, but I hope she isn't trying to put some sort of "victim mentality" into it that only tends to frustrate people and put up more barriers to counter what has been broken down already?

mr shark:

16 Sep 2014 1:43:02pm

'when we hear that a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability, we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified'Only if one valued a disabled person's life less than that of an able-bodied one. I agree this is too much of a generalisation.

However Stella does have a point, if we take the case of the farmer who recently shot the environmental officer, they were coming out of the woodwork to make excuses for him, other landowners who disliked having anyone telling them what to do with their land, local media, local MPs most with a political agenda.

All too often we have " agendas" at play when things like this happen. It overlooks the fact that it is completely inexcusable in almost any circumstances ( for instance if your family were about to fall captive by barbarians, ISIS, certain street gangs , then it might be kinder to end their lives as well as your own).

But this act cannot by any stretch of the imagination be thought of as a kindness, it's not excusable in fact it's irredeemably selfish.

By all means if you feel suicidal then that is your right to end your life, but you have no excuse whatsoever to take other lives just because you feel that you " own" your wife and children.

Guys who wipe out their families as well as themselves are despicable. It's sad that the media and bystanders seem to want to try and find excuses that downplay their acts.

Csaber:

16 Sep 2014 1:59:04pm

Agreed. I don't believe the entire premise of Stella's article is based in fact at all.

To that end, even where the strain of a marriage where one partner has been affected by a disability or injury is discussed, it's usually in an attempt to understand what happened and why, not to *justify* it. They are distinct concepts, with wildly different intentions.

Lorn:

16 Sep 2014 2:24:42pm

Being fair to the OP... When I read it out of context, that line does look a bit strange, but I think what she was saying was that the way we view the murderer is coloured by the way the victim is presented. And in this case, the media 'softened' the blow of a family massacre by painting it up as something with some kind of sense and sentimentality.

I thinks she was making the point that it shouldn't be able to make us less horrified. We should be more horrified if anything at all, not less. Yet, by painting the picture of the long-suffering carer, we do often perceive a murder as something less 'horrific' because it is given a sense of logic.

It is actually quite clear in the quote from Nina Funnell.

Reading the first two lines, there is an immediate feeling of senselessness, and mindless violence. Yet if we're told first that a loving family man broke down and entered his wife's place of work and took her life and the lives of his children... the context is vastly different. What we 'feel' is different.

Words are easy to use and easily affect how we feel, even if we logically, in our heads think: Oh no, I would not be less horrified.

It would have been better if the OP worded with an emphasis on the carer: And yet, when we hear that the murderer was caring for the disabled victim...

Just a difficult concept to word, but I don't think what the OP meant was that we automatically feel okay if the victim was a disabled woman. It depends on how the murderer was portrayed (E.G. killed her for life insurance, or cared for her for years and broke down). The focus is not that the victim is a disabled woman, the article is more about our response if we think that the murderer somehow had an understandable 'reason' for wanting the victim dead.

Deb From Melbourne:

16 Sep 2014 3:34:08pm

I have to agree with Taxed. But at the end of the day the man who shot his family, obviously believed they couldn't live without him. Regardless of the issues he may have had, he was so self centred that he needed to kill them all. That is Family Violence at it's worst. No excuses for this man!! Using this women's disability to excuse his violence is just appalling!!

juliet:

Pete:

16 Sep 2014 6:39:05pm

I found the statement 'we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified' bizarre too, and an odd bit of projection on the part of the author because it seems to be completely unrepresentative of what people actually did think. I did find the whole 'decent family man' narrative shocking though. I'm assuming the media reported it verbatim from the townsfolk, who were probably just trying to rationalise something that can't be rationalised. Still, it should not have been reported as such. We have a tendency to sanctify/demonise protagonists in these tragedies, yet we have no idea what actually happened. I'd prefer it if the media left the low-rent analysis to the coroner's inquest, and just reported the facts. We really don't need to know how the guy's farm was going (OK apparently), or the fact the woman struggled after a car accident at this stage, because we can't put any of it in context, and any interpretation now is likely to be either wrong, or hurtful to people. The only thing we can be sure of is that the husband was certainly deranged, but other than that, we can't pass judgement on him. 'Blame' is a dirty word in society now. There's nothing wrong with 'blaming' people, but it requires a full, objective analysis of all the circumstances before it's a legitimate thing to say about somebody and their actions.

Skeptica:

16 Sep 2014 7:23:02am

Whenever I see that yet another man has viciously killed his children or partner I think: "What excuse is this one going to have". There is always some stress, some hardship, some excuse that supposedly explains or even justifies his actions. We even see some claiming that just being a male is so stressful these days that any man can be excused for violence.

The fact is that most men do not do this kind of thing. It is an abnormal action by a few individuals who have an inflated idea of their own importance and no concept of the rights of their children and partners.

Nein:

16 Sep 2014 8:34:56am

Yes, but even accounting for the dark figure of crime and basing estimates on victimisation surveys, the statistics seem to indicate that the perpetrators of domestic abuse tend to be men and the victims women and children.

I'm not saying I agree with Skeptica, but a quick Google provides fairly good data on this, e.g. http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

Bev:

16 Sep 2014 8:52:40am

According to the ABS 2012 Safety survey one third of victims are men and the rate of men reporting violence is increasing at the rate of 170% a year. All but 6% of this violence was committed by women.

Susan Banks:

Jack tar:

16 Sep 2014 1:31:18pm

Susan, in domestic violence case women usually get off with manslaughter, such as the woman who drugged her ex-husband, and cut his penis off when he awakened. he died two days later in hospital. She got 4 years because she had an insane delusion that he would take custody of their child.

Another example on a Current Affair, a woman made an unprovoked attack on her husband with a hammer, he suffered serious head injuries but survived, she got something like three years. If he had done the same to her she would have died for certain.

Men are better at killing than women, but every case should be decided on its merits, not its gender.

Lee:

16 Sep 2014 6:46:27pm

Don't forget the child victims of domestic violence.

According to AIC research analyst Jenny Mouzos, in her report 'Homicidal Encounters, biological mothers account for about 35 per cent of all filicides (about the same proportion as stepfathers and de factos), while biological fathers account for 29 per cent.

Sue:

16 Sep 2014 11:40:36am

Bev, if "one third of victims are men" and "6% is perpetrated by women" that is saying men are still the predominant perpetrators of violence towards women, children and other men.This is not excusing abusive women, that itself needs to be addressed at another time, but it is obviously saying we have a huge problem with male entitled violence.

Bev:

Sue:

I did read your comment wrong Bev and it appears you are a liar spreading misinformation because I'm at the abs stat page "PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE" and it's telling me a difference story to yours.

"Due to the relatively small numbers of persons experiencing sexual violence and violence by a female perpetrator, it is not possible to provide the same level of detailed information for sexual violence as physical violence (refer Table 5), and for violence by female perpetrators as male perpetrators (refer Table 6)."

Lorn:

I don't know what the ABS data for % of men vs women abuse, but for argument's sake, let's say it's also all but 6%, 94% of 66% is 62.04%

So 31.35% of all abuse is perpetrated by women against men.And let's say 62.04% is men against women. I still think 62 > 31 by a margin of 50%.

You also did not mention what the rate of women reporting violence is increasing at, so it's hard to tell if it's the general report of abuse rising or only the men reporting abuse (in which case, cases of men being abused being reported should soon overtaken women!).

Bev:

16 Sep 2014 4:44:28pm

My point? You cannot solve or reduce a problem by ignoring 1/3 of that problem. A fact increasingly being recognized in other Western countries most of whom now accept that 40% of DV is against men. Britain for instance is running campaigns urging women to report DV but have introduced (n a lesser scale) campaigns urging men to do likewise. A harder task as many men are quite reluctant to report that their wife is beating them up.

Bev:

Nein:

16 Sep 2014 4:09:21pm

I have doubts about the stats you state, Bev (can you give us a link?).

However, as I said, even taking into account the dark figure of crime, including unreported crime, everything I've studied on the matter indicates that men are predominantly the perpetrators and women and children are predominantly the victims.

I have yet to see anything credible which goes against that--but I'm happy to have a look at any materials, so long as they're reputable or at least peer-reviewed.

Bev:

BJ:

16 Sep 2014 3:58:22pm

Most research suggests that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Therefore, sexist attitudes towards women are probably one factor leading to domestic violence.However, men are on the receiving end of at least a third of domestic violence and certain subgroups of women are more likely than others to be victims of domestic violence. Therefore, other factors contribute to domestic violence and it should be acceptable to discuss these factors. Ms Young wants to dismiss discussion of these other factors as victim-blaming or condoning murder, which is a shame, because it prevents her from fully understanding how these events happen.

Lexx:

The discussion was about a parent killing a spouse and children, and whether the fact that the victim spouse having a disability had a bearing on the matter.

The article does not resort to stereotyping the way some of the comments here do, and when the argument degenerates into generalisations such as "yet another man has viciously killed his children or partner" then it becomes facile.

James in Brisbane:

16 Sep 2014 10:03:02am

Gender has everything to do with violence, both to others and self-inflicted. Men commit most crime against their partners, against strangers and have far higher rates of suicide by violent means. We are animals, our biology has a massive impact on our behaviour, and trying to argue otherwise is simply denial. We can't address these issues until we acknowledge this. Men are inherently more violent than women, they have lower levels of empathy, suffer from conditions like autism and sociopathy at massively higher rates than women. Simple biological reality.

Steven:

16 Sep 2014 1:15:14pm

By that arguement, what do you say about the over representation of aboriginal people in the justice system.

Again a matter of biology?

The problem is that domestic violence against men is vastly under reported as the statistic shows and violecne against men particularly by femals is still acceptable in our society. A woman slaps a man in a pub, nothing is said, a man does the same thing and it is assault. The same situation exists on television where violent acts against woemn or showing women as stupid would not be acceptable, does not apply to males

Blzbob:

16 Sep 2014 8:59:03am

"Whenever I see that yet another man has viciously killed his children or partner I think: "What excuse is this one going to have". "

Undiagnosed mental disability perhaps.Maybe he was as much a victim as they were.He obviously had nothing to gain.What pushed him over the edge? I wonder.Was it his boss? was it the bank?What could drive someone to such despair?

If Oscar Pistorius had taking his own life after killing his girlfriend, I might have felt some pity for him too, unless he is diagnosed as having mental health issues I will feel none.

They were all victims, and perhaps his is the saddest story of all.Prove to me that he had no "Disability", and that that disability was not the cause. Do sane people behave that way?

James in Brisbane:

16 Sep 2014 10:05:51am

By definition, all deviant behaviour is arguably mental illness. Psychopaths/sociopaths, narcissists, autistics all display lessened or no ability to empathise with others. Not to mention that empathy is lost in various situations by otherwise empathic people, for example as they increase in social/work status (it has been shown that executives lose empathy as they get promoted to higher levels).

Mary2:

16 Sep 2014 10:52:46am

No. Most people with mental illnesses or disabilities don't murder people. So, unless you are going to claim that we should feel sorry for the murderers who cut the heads off journalists (because who would do such a thing without a mental illness), find another excuse.

Rhonda:

One of the most factual statements of the many judgemental comments appearing here (at a time when little factual evidence is even known about this tragedy).

No doubt, none of these 'know it alls' are aware that mental illness can affect ANYONE at ANY TIME. If they were to fall 'victim' themselves, they'd better hope they don't come across too many who share their current attitudes!

Molly K:

16 Sep 2014 7:23:47am

Could not agree with this article more. If the thousands of men - or women - coping with stress and family issues and disabilities and financial problems DONT go around shooting their families and themselves, why are we excusing the ones that do?

Gordon:

Angela:

16 Sep 2014 11:26:47am

The 'we' is the public that accept shoddy standards of journalism and victim blaming. Although I think perhaps Young's language is a little strong in parts, she does not exaggerate the fact that excuses are often found that serve to mitigate some of the 'blame' for perpetrators of this sort of crime. And further, I believe Young is correct when she offers that the blame is often shared by the female victims of the crimes. Numerous cases over the years have caught my attention, such as: a report of a case where the fourteen year old daughter had been sexually abused by her father for six years was discussed in terms of the father's loss of his wife. The issue Young raises is not about domestic violence occurring, as much as how it discussed when it is reported. And on this point I totally concur with her.

Gordon:

16 Sep 2014 1:02:37pm

I don't hold with blaming victims, and I don't hold with excuses for domestic or any other violence. If there was a report in the paper that did this, bag it by all means. But I think Stella with the very best of intentions shot wide of the mark in generalising the idea that some "we" cares less if a disabled person is the victim. The circumstances of gruesome crimes often get dragged out in the press - doesn't mean anyone sensible is making excuses. Quotes from neighbours that x "seemed a nice man" are dime-a-dozen regardless of the victim. Lawyers dragging out debatable psychology on behalf of their client is them doing their job, like it or not.

All her points about difficulty in reporting crimes, being believed etc I don't doubt, and I admire Young's advocacy on their behalf: but the source of the problem needs a sharper focus than "we".

Andrew Campbell:

16 Sep 2014 7:24:21am

I agree. Its because people, we, are desperate to find answers, explanations, reasons. We have trouble with the notion of evil. Richard Dawkins famously said, ''In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference ...'

Matt from Canberra:

Joel:

16 Sep 2014 9:50:19am

Oh Phew! - then it's all right then! No need to mourn - no need for justice - no need for compassion, 'cause s&*^ happens. Next time someone close to you is wronged, I hope that notion brings you solace. Btw - if that is the case, why is Dawkins so keen on ranting about perceived injustice/ ignorance/ cruelty etc? (obviously because he knows it to be crap!) His comment also means that yours is invalid as there is no rhyme/ reason/ purpose etc.

Applaudanum:

16 Sep 2014 11:29:07am

Not quite, Joel.

It isn't that there's 'no rhyme/ reason/ purpose etc.', but rather there is no external moderator or adjudicator of rhyme, reason, purpose etc. We, as people living on our spinning orb, have to determine rhyme, reason, purpose etc for ourselves. This will no doubt require a consensus with other individuals in 'Team Earth'.

As an individual, I adhere to a code of rhyme, reason, purpose etc that I believe is important, and one that I know has no bearing upon what happens to 'me' after I die but instead serves as an example of how others can go about their lives long after I'm gone.

Can you, Joel, 'man up' to that responsibility? Or will you choose the child's option of 'getting away with stuff' whenever mum and dad isn't watching?

Joel:

16 Sep 2014 1:39:59pm

I think you are kidding yourself. What if I disagree (like IS at present)? Can you say I'm wrong, or just that you don't like it? If I determine my own reality/ reason/ purpose - what if that involves crushing yours? You have no external point of reference - just some vague notion of "humanity", "reason" or cultural norms. Is that what "manning up" means - to accept that all things are equal and permissible, so long as I have the will to enforce it? Also, you cannot arrive at an "ought" from Dawkins position - just a point of view. If you think that is enlightenment, you don't know what light is.

Applaudanum:

16 Sep 2014 7:01:19pm

Sure you can disagree, and if you have a broad consensus of those willing to rally behind you, you may even attempt a 'conversion' of those yet to see your light should you wish it. I can say I don't like it and I can say you're wrong, yet if I have no consensus to rally behind me, I've got little choice to accept the standards of the new overlords, or die trying. In a sense, what you say about having the will to enforce it is exactly it, if one forgives the confrontational imperative.

'Manning up' in the given context refers to the notion that it is the race of Man (pun intended) who determines reality, reason, purpose etc, rather than relying upon a mother, father, authority figure to confer that reality, reason, purpose etc. In the former, Man takes responsibility for the outcomes of that determining for good or ill. In the latter, Man is a childlike figure before a greater authority. Those who would claim that the lack of an authority figure would imply a relativist 'free-for-all' are simply claiming that the race of Man is wholly populated by scheming children just waiting to do whatever they like once the Adult's back is turned. I like to think the race of Man is better than that, don't you?

I'll take your word for it that one cannot arrive at an 'ought' from Dawkin's position, just a point of view. Yet we know from experience that not all points of view are of equal merit, despite the lessons of cultural relativism of the last 3 decades or so. Just because I am of the view that I can make bread using arsenic, hemlock, rhubarb leaves and ergot-ridden grains, that doesn't mean that such a point of view has any merit worth following. Every aspect of knowledge, from knowing how to make bread, knowing what eggs can be used for, knowing how to design and build shelters and bridges etc is passed down from one generation to the next because they are consistent with the environment we find ourselves in. In other words, we can rely on that knowledge, the points of view that are proven in the field, and we can save the following generation from having to work out those details themselves. That following generation can then 'stand on the shoulders' of those who came before and can themselves go on to refine the existing knowledge, and/or add to that knowledge, for the benefit of the generation to follow them.

Joel:

17 Sep 2014 8:00:38am

Thank you for your considered response - I appreciate the obvious thought (and time) it took to compose. However, I don't share your optimistic view of humanity - the evidence doesn't support it. People individually are fine, but as a group are litigious, selfish, short sighted and ignorant. Yes, knowledge builds on itself (ideally), but not only has that not increased wisdom, it is an ideal for the most part (science excepted) as we don't learn from the mistake of others but think it'll never happen to me- we may be as a society be the best educated, but overall are the most stupid and vacuous, accepting and encouraging narcissism as virtue. This is not to say I don't love humanity - I love humanity despite of this. I fear you hold to the notion that if we could just make people a little better, all would be well, and I agree with the exception that said improvement must start with a foundational change in the heart an persepctive of man, and not social policy or tech, and can never be legislated. Have a great day and thank you for your courtesy and good will.

ingenuous:

16 Sep 2014 12:23:32pm

Not at all. The point of Dawkins' statement is to explain why random bad things happen. It's not because malevolent forces are arrayed against us, it is because completely indifferent forces are at work.

This doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't do things to improve the world (from our perspective). But it does mean we can't expect to make everyone safe, even the most deserving of people.

There may be no meaning behind the deaths of this family. There may be no lesson to learn. We can't explain every action. We may have to live with random forces, some of which can kill us.

Whitey:

16 Sep 2014 7:30:42am

Stella, assuming we are a bit less shocked because the wife had a disability is patronizing. I haven't heard any one even partly trying to excuse the crime, although I'm sure some people would look to something like that to try and explain such a horrible act, but it still makes no sense. It just shows that not all people who committ monstrous act appear to be monsters.

James in Brisbane:

16 Sep 2014 10:07:22am

I think the point she is making is that his actions are seen as more justified because he was pushed beyond breaking point caring for a disabled wife, therefore his actions were more understandable or forgiveable. That undercurrent has been apparent in a number of reports I've read.

Csaber:

16 Sep 2014 2:07:29pm

I would much prefer to see Stella evaluate what a husband struggling with a wife's sudden disability, should do.Would he be morally permitted to put in her a care facility? What rights would she have to stay, requiring assistance from him, potentially forever? What are the balances between their needs? An injured partner, who relies wholly on the other to retain some semblance of normality and recovery, against someone who is incapable of providing that standard of care.

I think Stella's point of view would be much more interesting on that matter, that this complete strawman nonsense.

Lexx:

A curious opinion piece, I'd say the author has an agenda floating just under the surface of this one.

The author seeks to paint a picture that both she and the reader 'can find ourselves less horrified' to find out that 'a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability'.

I think many people will have a problem with the projection of that sentiment upon them by the author. I certainly do.

It's also a long bow to describe the circumstances (at least insofar as they are outlined here) simply as 'domestic violence', which encompasses a very broad spectrum of issues. Most people would imagine domestic violence to be an ongoing pattern of hitting, yelling, dominating, whatever else. Where there is no such history (indeed a loving family environment or so it seems) but instead a rising level of mental stress that suddenly erupts into murder-suicide I think most people would classify that differently to your average scumbag wife-beater.

I wonder what the author's opinion is of the wife who murders her husband after years of physical, emotional and financial abuse? Is there a case for diminished responsibility there? I would argue that there is, and in circumstances where the husband in this case probably had some pre-existing mental problems that were exacerbated by the stress of his wife's disability I think a similar principle probably applies.

I don't claim to have any particular insight into the case, and it's certainly a tragedy for the victims, their families and community.

James in Brisbane:

16 Sep 2014 10:08:41am

And people like you Bev try to apologise for male violence by creating a canard such as female violence against men, ignoring the sociological, cultural and biological factors at play. Just look at the numbers.

Bev:

Lou:

16 Sep 2014 9:38:47am

I agree with most that the author says, I find it hard to agree that women who kill husbands should be part of this discussion. I have a picture in my mind and have had it since I first heard of this killing, I imagine the second and third child to be killed, having seen their father's first actions and knowing what was about to happen to them. The betrayal and fear that must have ensued makes me ill!

floss:

16 Sep 2014 5:34:19pm

Yes, Lou. I have a similar response. Especially as the first shot may have brought their mother down and the children could have turned to their father for protection, not realizing what the real situation was.

And to think that the 'straw that broke the camel's back' may have been something as simple as a foreclosure notice from the bank. We seriously need better community support facilities, especially in regional areas. Oh dear, I'm crying again. The children, the poor, dear children......

Ann:

Lexx I love how you start out by objecting to the author's "projection" onto you of the sentiment that the wife's disability had some level of mitigation on the crime that was committed.

But then you go on to express that sentiment exactly when you say that it was possibly a "rising level of mental stress that suddenly erupts into murder-suicide" and therefore that's different from the "average scumbags", and there's maybe some "diminished responsibility".

Um... so why did you object to having Stella assume you thought that, when you do indeed think it?

aGuy:

Killing your whole family and yourself is against all notions of evolution and reproduction.

There is something very extreme there. The worst serial killers tend to leave their families alone. This violence is shocking because of how unnatural it is.

I dont see any other species where a parent kills all of the family. Other species routinely have cases of killing members of other families. Something in humanity is a drive for murders of the whole kin.

Miowarra:

16 Sep 2014 8:52:13am

"I dont see any other species where a parent kills all of the family. "

Other (non-primate) species don't HAVE "families" and even among the other great apes, our closest cousins, family groupings are more akin to clans or those religious cults where there is one (only) alpha male with mating rights to any female.

Among other mammals, it's quite normal for an incoming male to kill or drive away any offspring from a previous male, again to have sole proprietorial rights over the female(s).

That's a very cogent explanation of why in humans so much domestic and sexual violence against children is perpetrated by her new boyfriend or other adoptive male parent - he has no genetic investment in those children and instinctively doesn't want them as a drain on the resources he brings in to make or keep the relationship with the female. Female children who can be added to his harem will receive a higher proportion of his resources ("for services rendered") than any male children.

You probably need to lose that Victorian romantic error of "happy families in the wild".

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 1:51:08pm

Um Miowarra you are quite wrong in saying that non-primate animals don't have families.

I suggest you look into Australian magpie family dynamics in which a group of related magpies will lay stake to an area and share it with their parents/siblings/children - although they will drive each other out if competition gets hard. Some of the related magpies that have not reproduced yet will help with the child-rearing and training of their new siblings/nephews etc.

What is that if not a family?

Not to mention a pride of lions where the alpha male will sometimes tolerate a related brother to stay in his group. Again, that's a family.

Lee eel:

AJ:

16 Sep 2014 7:39:22am

I couldn't disagree with your logic more.

You're conflating 'understanding' a perpetrator's motivation with blaming a victim. Not the same thing. We attempt to understand the motivations of everyone from the worse of history's dictators to the most sympathetic of minor criminals (who doesn't want to understand why culture, displacement and oppression lead young aboriginal men to end up in custody more?)

Understanding how anxiety, pressure, mental illness or any other factor contribute to someone's crimes is not the same as excusing them and certainly nothing like blaming the victim.

Cobbler:

This guy clearly got to the point where he needed an out and society wouldn't allow him one.

Imagine if he had just upped and left? He'd be shunned, ex-communicated by family and business and left destitute and alone. Not really a good option is it?

Imagine if he had approached someone and said, "I need an out. If I can't get out of this situation I'm just going to blow everyone away". What would happen? would we jump in and take the family on while he went and restarted life somewhere else? Of-course not. At best the government might fork out for a few psych sessions.......

Now I'm not defending his actions, but I can understand why they happened. I certainly don't blame the wife. Maybe he did though? Perhaps she was an outrageous lead-foot who just got defensive when he asked her to slow down (I can kind of relate to that). Forced to work 12hours days as a farmer and then be a permanent carer for his partner and mostly single-handedly raise 3 children 7 days a week has the potential to wear you down. There is help available but it's usually not nearly enough.

At the end of the day he did a terrible thing, but to appoach this problem from the point that understanding the crime is the same as blaming the victim is outrageous.

Helen:

16 Sep 2014 2:13:05pm

"Imagine if he had just upped and left? He'd be shunned, ex-communicated by family and business and left destitute and alone. Not really a good option is it?"...Yairs, a mass killing was totes a better option, Cobbler!... O_o

Peter:

16 Sep 2014 10:16:13am

I totally agree with you, AJ, and was thinking the same thing when I read this ridiculous opinion piece. Shame on her for using this horrific accident into an opportunity to push some warped agenda on the rest of us.

Stella: people have every right to try and figure out why something like this happens, when it does. Remember Columbine? The world has spent countless hours trying to figure out why two apparently normal everyday kids would do such a thing. Does that mean we are blaming the people who they shot? Of course not. Put away your silly biases and get back into reality. You should delete your ridiculous opinion piece. Makes you look sad.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 1:56:20pm

Don't be ridiculous. There was indeed a lot of talk about the Columbine tragedy that pointed out how the boys who did it had been bullied - in essence saying that some of their victims were the ones that provoked them to do it.

And then you get to the phase where you say "Well they still shouldn't have done it... but it wouldn't have happened at all if no-one had pushed them so hard".

And in this particular circumstance the "pushing so hard" was the fact that the wife was disabled and the husband became a caretaker for his entire family without help - you know, like a lot of single mothers are.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 3:26:49pm

Um, maybe you should look up Sandra Boodman's article that details all the studies that were done after Columbine looking into the connection between bullying and violent acts at school - that is just one of many discussions of bullying being a 'trigger' for the attacks.

Of course no-one came out and said "It was the bully's fault that they got shot by that geeky kid" but likewise no-one came out and said it was this disabled woman's fault that she got shot by her husband - they just discussed how hard it must have been for him to have that crippled wife, that's all...

Cobbler:

16 Sep 2014 2:52:15pm

Again Ann, I completely fail to see your point.

Maybe those points about bullying are relevant? Maybe if we address bullying in a better way then these things will be reduced? It doesn't justify their actions. They should still be punished for it. Stop conflating issues. This is not the same as saying that a woman who keeps her mouth shut will get beaten less.

What's with the single mum analogy? I mean seriously? You girls just do it so tough don't you....................

Ann:

He said: "Remember Columbine? The world has spent countless hours trying to figure out why two apparently normal everyday kids would do such a thing. Does that mean we are blaming the people who they shot? Of course not."

I pointed out to him studies and articles that did *indeed* indicate that some of the blame laid on the people who bullied them.

So, he was wrong that there was not some victim-blaming taking place around the Columbine tragedy. There certainly was, even if it was in implications and very, very non-personal terms, with no-one breathing even a hint of individual names. Especially since many of the slain kids probably were not bullies at all.

So how do you fail to see that point?

There was very subtle victim-blaming after Columbine, and there was very subtle victim-blaming in the case of this murder-suicide, just as Stella said there was.

Jack Tar:

16 Sep 2014 6:38:44pm

Ann,It's a pity you view the world in terms of blame. Blame is the greatest barrier to solving problems, and this is not to say that the wicked should not be punished. Blaming is moralistic and confrontationist.

Closet Romantic:

16 Sep 2014 5:04:42pm

Cobber

You sought of made the same point here in Columbine these kids had been ostracised, alienated bullied and spat upon and the society at school let it happen so than rather than taking an individual approach to their bullies they saw the whole school as one huge bully ...by extension all society they saw no end to the alienation and mistreatment.

Just as the guy would have been if he abandoned his family.

There is no excuse for either behaviour but the killers had reasons in their own minds.

Stephen S:

The press coverage was disgraceful, in the vintage American style of a 'senseless tragedy', totally focused on what a great bloke he was and whatever made him 'snap'?

These unhelpful articles bent over backwards not to mention the g-word, although it is well known that murder-suicide becomes less likely if there are no guns around.

So, I'm still waiting to hear, ABC, Fairfax, anyone. What was the history of the gun and how was it purchased and regulated? Who used it and for what purposes? How was it stored and had there been any other violence or irregularities with it? And so forth.

That's what you should be reporting, given that sectional interests are working their butts off to promote American gun culture here. You are pandering to this group.

Lexx:

16 Sep 2014 3:03:18pm

Ann, you really are drawing ridiculous conclusions.

The Shooters and Fishers party propose nothing remotely like the 'right to bear arms' granted by the US constitution.

As far as I know the Shooters and Fishers party does not advocate permitting people to own firearms because they 'want one'. Although you assert it, you have not shown evidence that this is their position.

Gun licenses are already issued by the states, but what's the problem with them being nationally recognised? I can drive a car interstate on my state-issued license.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 5:07:27pm

"As far as I know the Shooters and Fishers party does not advocate permitting people to own firearms because they 'want one'. Although you assert it, you have not shown evidence that this is their position."

You can read in their own federal policies, on their website, that they want the 1996 National Firearms Agreement to be abolished.

Let's see, what would that mean? Before then states could have their own gun restrictions, and some states, such as Tasmania and Queensland, allowed shotguns to be bought without much restriction. You know, just if you wanted one.

So why would they want to roll back national gun restrictions if not to allow some states to relax the laws and therefore once more allow guns to be sold more freely?

You can already get a gun legally if you really, really want one. There's no reason to make it easier again except for ideology.

Maxx:

16 Sep 2014 3:21:08pm

Ann,

This bit - "given that sectional interests are working their butts off to promote American gun culture here".

There has never been a "gun culture" in Australia and I cannot see that the S&F Party or any other mainstream pro-firearms group are promoting anything like the situation that exists in parts of the USA. As for "States Rights" being an "Americanisation" I think you might find that it is the primary source of disagreement between the Commonwealth and the States here in Australia.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 5:10:10pm

There has been disagreement between the states and the commonwealth (of course they clam up about wanting independence when they need something from the federal government) but the phrase "States Rights" is from the USA. That therefore indicates some spread in ideology from the USA to Australia.

Similar ideological spread can be seen in people commenting that they "elected" Rudd or Abbott to lead them instead of a party, etc.

There should always be concern raised when people come to think that the issues and politics of another country can be applied to our own.

ij:

whatif:

16 Sep 2014 7:42:41am

I don't agree with the disability bit at all, if the guy couldn't take it then by all means shoot your self but why kill innocent kids and wife because you haven't got what it takes to get on with life,

Edward:

16 Sep 2014 7:43:11am

Any form of violence, whether committed by a male or female, is abhorrant. I think Stella is taking an overly simplistic view of what is probably a very complicated situation. We don't know whether the man concerned for instance suffered from some form of mental illness, which is a disability.

To imply that the woman was the only person affected by the car crash is again overly simplistic. If someone has a disability it can have an effect on all of those around. It would have been nice if Stella had taken the time to consider the possible factors that may have contributed to the events. Were there adequate support mechanisms around? Did anyone ask the question about how they were going?

There's this tendency to try and put things in a nice neat box which defines things as good and bad or right and wrong. Seldom is life so straightforward. The point is that we as a society need to learn why this sort of thing happens and what we need to do to prevent it happening again.

Edward:

16 Sep 2014 5:03:35pm

With all due respect Ann, you, like Stella are attempting to oversimplify an issue that goes beyond simple judgements of right or wrong. I fear that you have deliberately misinterpreted my statements in order to put forward an idea in such a way that if someone disagrees with you then they must be a male shovenist or at least a fool.

Stella's article seems to be based on an assertion that we, as a society, value the woman's life as being less valuable because of her disability and that her disability had no affect on those around her. In my view these assertions are na?ve to say the least.

As I said at the outset of my comment I abhor violence of any sort be it at the instigation of a male or female. With this case we don't know what happened.

Stella seems to assert that the man in question had nothing wrong with him. I simply point out that perhaps he may have developed some form of mental disability. I do not say that this reduces his culpability. Though, I do note that in law there is a defence of diminished capacity as a result of mental impairment. So, the legal fraternity might disagree with you.

In my view Stella has yet again wasted an excellent opportunity to investigate the route causes of problems facing people with disability and instead used it to denigrate society and an individual whose circumstances we can only surmise about before the Coroner brings down his/her findings.

Unlike many I don't see the world in terms of black and white. I understand that there may be reasons for certain things happening and I'm interested in finding out why. It's only when we know why can we know how to prevent future tragedies. If you simply shut down the conversation by resorting to black and white answers then no one is better off.

Ann:

anote the point of this article, and the responses, is that some of the coverage of the crime has implied that the disability of his wife was part of the reason he murdered them.

If it wasn't, why would they have mentioned she was disabled at all?

Think about it, if the article had said "Conservative old-fashioned Christian man snaps and kills his liberal political activist daughter" would you think "Oh, that is the reason he killed her?" If it wasn't, why would they mention it, hey?

anote:

16 Sep 2014 3:26:31pm

Disability being a contributing factor to the reason is not the same as disability being used as an excuse.

The media in general is sensationalist and would not be averse to using a wife's disability to condemn a man like Young has. So the media did not do that in this circumstance. You do not have to agree with the media.

As far a domestic violence goes this case is atypical in there are indications are that it was a one off, intended to be final and not vindictive.

Why would they not have brought up that she was disabled? That is their business, which does not mean I always approve of how they go about it either. It would have been odd if they did not bring it up.

With respect to Young, she is categorically putting all domestic violence as being equally culpable, regardless of circumstances. Young does not even recognise the possibility of the perpetrator being a well meaning victim of circumstance. Think about it harder.

For example, a mitigating circumstance of a women murdering her husband is serious, persistent domestic violence. The murder is domestic violence. By Young's criteria the woman is not a victim. I disagree.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 5:15:48pm

First of all, some media *did* use the wife's disability to paint a certain picture of the husband. There have been several media outlets cited in the comments thread that did just that. And yes we don't have to agree with the media, but that's what this piece was about. Stella was not agreeing with the narrative the media was telling.

And again, it's only "odd" that they didn't bring it up if they didn't think it was some kind of mitigation against the husband's culpability.

And as for your waffle that we consider the husband "a well meaning victim of circumstance" well there's not much I can really say against that... I don't know how killing your children is well-meaning when they're not starving and you're not in a civil war with no chance for survival. This is a first world country and his children would have been fed and clothed even without him, even if it wasn't a nice life.

Finally, your comparison between domestic violence provoking a murder and a disabled partner provoking a murder is *entirely Stella's point*. You are saying that being beaten by your partner is somehow even mildly equivalent to having your partner become disabled, in terms of mitigating your later actions against them.

Can you not see how horrible that is to equate being disabled to being a wife-beater?

anote:

16 Sep 2014 6:31:24pm

Ann,

I did not equate being disabled to being a wife beater. Young definitively categorised Brad Hunt as not being a victim. Young did not consider circumstances beyond the actual murder suicide event to be of any relevance. I say they are of relevance.

I made a comparison between a beaten wife and Geoff Hunt. I can excuse a women for murdering her husband if the husband has severely beaten her persistently. The woman was a victim. However, if I were to exclude circumstances beyond the actual murder by the woman then she is not a victim and murdering her husband would not be excusable.

Apparently you and Young cannot accept the contribution of circumstances to this particular tragedy, namely the car accident. I am not justifying it as many others are not justifying it. Like many others I am criticising the response by Young.

We are all subject to being victims or beneficiaries of circumstances to varying degrees. Life is not black and white. The circumstances may be different but the point is that circumstances may be relevant. What axe are you grinding?

Freddie Frog:

I don't think this man's wife suffering a disability makes what he did any less abhorrent but what would the author think if the husband also had a disability.Namely, mental illness?

Surely the family and friends would know the details far better than any armchair critic would. What happened was horrible, the fact that people look for answers is understandable. It doesn't make the husband any less responsible for his own actions.

Graeski:

16 Sep 2014 8:09:24am

He murdered himself as well. Does this make him a victim, too?

Seeking to understand why someone does something is not the same as excusing them for the action. It's certainly never occurred to me for a moment that the wife's disability in any way justified what happened. Nor do I consider myself qualified to pass judgement. Everything about it is just sad and tragic and horrific.

Wary:

16 Sep 2014 8:17:34am

A worthy article Stella, and a valid point that somewhere in darker hearts, there is more sympathy than there should be for yet another brutal man, a true student of the school of masculinity that teaches no options other than control and violence, murdering those he is supposed to love. It's nice that some of the comments have been quick to say "not me", but that doesn't make what Stella is saying untrue... The same happens with sex workers and women of colour, or women who have been unfaithful, in fact, it happens in all categories that fall under "female" in general.... We still look to the women to see if we can find a reason for the mans bad mood, rather than looking at the holding pattern of domestic violence and asking harder, bigger, more frightening questions... And you know, people often ask why the women don't leave, I always wonder why the men don't...

Closet Romantic:

16 Sep 2014 5:17:49pm

Hi Fred

Both remarks are on cue neither is better or worse than the other

Women get post natal depression which can make them injure or kill their children. It happens and there are biochemical factorsThe question becomes at what point to biochemical factors become a reason or mitigate the act?

We don't know when biochemistry of the brain starts to overpower reason but we know that it is a spiral down if there is no intervention or the intervention is unsuccessful.

The response was to poster blaming men

Accept that neither gender has a monopoly on virtue or rational behaviour and start seeing each other as human beings.

Wary:

16 Sep 2014 4:21:52pm

Wrong again EP, when one man dies every week at the hands of his female partner or ex-partner in Australia, your beliefs may have some grounding in fact. God forbid we should ever see those kinds of stats. I do not accept your premise that females kill children at the same rate that males do either, at least not in modern Australia, or any western countries for that matter. Please say Hi to Santa Claus next time you and he catch up :)

BJ:

16 Sep 2014 6:29:19pm

When women kill male partners, courts are more likely to view it as self-defence, because of the sexism that EP complains about. We have no idea how the stats would look without this confounding variable.

Wary:

16 Sep 2014 9:27:34pm

I have never heard that statistic regarding a man being killed every fortnight by a parter/ex-partner, although I have heard one anecdotal story of an attempted murder. I don't support that violence, but I'd like to see your sources. I share your despair over male suicide, which I understand derives from a complex range of factors, of which the dehumanising bounds of masculinity are a part. Like anyone, I can produce a list of friends, and friends of friends impacted by this. But that is a very different cause of death. Also I agree that violence against Men is a huge problem, but the main perpetrators are men... As they are in violence against women. And you know, every time there is an article trying to discuss this, there are a bunch of commenters who add nothing to the conversation other than to say "yeah but some men are victims too". That as well is a totally different conversation, and frankly, if one of those commenters would write a decent referenced article on the topic citing real numbers, then I would read that article and learn something. All I hear are a bunch of apologists telling us to shut up because we don't know the facts or have a feminist agenda. It's really tiring. Women are routinely beaten and murdered in this country in their own homes. Many of these women are probably protecting children from routine beatings. It's a documented, ugly, uncomfortable fact. We have a right to discuss it without the conversation being hi-jacked by people who want to de-rail it. It would be a breakthrough in this entire topic if those commenters would just drop the defensive posture, and stop playing the two-wrongs card.

Watkins:

Susan:

16 Sep 2014 8:23:54am

Stella, I have to say I find your assumption that people would find this story less horrific because the woman involved had a disability more than a little insulting. Are you saying that the public would value her life as having a lesser value? As a member of that public I am appalled that you could think that way. I think perhaps instead of trying to turn the looking glass outwards you should perhaps be turning it inwards, and considering that maybe you are projecting your own thoughts upon other people? This is a horrible story, and trying to politicise it for your own ends is disgusting.

Jack Tar:

16 Sep 2014 8:28:31am

Killing three beautiful children, your wife, and yourself is not rational behaviour. This case says more about the unrealistic pressures put on men than it does about domestic violence. Men are four times more likely to kill themselves and much more likely to die prematurely of violent deaths and illnesses.

You can hate Greg Hunt all you like, but hate does not solve anything.

Jack Tar:

Helen:

16 Sep 2014 2:17:14pm

No, it says plenty about domestic violence. Taken together with all the rest of the 'intimate partner violence" killings of the last decade, it shows a pattern of violence, control, entitlement and treating your partner and children like livestock which are yours to euthanase at will.

Jack Tar:

16 Sep 2014 7:00:46pm

Ann,Empathy is the ability to share other peoples emotions and understand their situation. I have been under extraordinary pressure through business and family, and had nowhere to turn. For me violence is never an option, but if it was I would have used it.

"Now if I were to write a book out of my experience, I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience."

awake:

Domestic violence is inexcusable. We see it day in day out. Broken eye sockets, black eyes, bruises covered by long sleeves. Or just as bad emotional and psychological damage.

It takes around seven times calling for help before women finally understand counselling. It is usually due to no money, nowhere to go, worry about the kids and absolute mind numbing fear.

We need to start teaching in school at a young age that violence is not the way to go. Anger management for some men works, but not all. Mental health funding is cut and cut again. It is one area that needs the most assistance for men, women and children.

kookakiwi:

16 Sep 2014 9:00:42am

I think people are presuming a lot here - I am sure there is another scenario and that it is very possible that Mr Hunt was acting from another catalyst. Why is it not possible to say that his wife was the perpetrator of the crime and he shot himself out of his grief at finding his family dead? Maybe she killed the kids and he then shot her and himself. Will we ever know? I do however think blaming Mr Hunt for something as the media is doing, is not covering all the possibilities.

Merilee Mann:

16 Sep 2014 1:04:27pm

Has anyone considered that perhaps an unrelated person murdered the whole family then tossed the gun into the dam with the husband's body. We cannot know what happened until the investigation is complete. Please do not judge the husband based on your own experience. Wait for the facts.

TSJ:

16 Sep 2014 9:01:19am

There is an obvious and urgent need for pre-tragedy counselling in our communities, to hopefully prevent these types of horrific events ever taking place. The argument is not who or what triggered the crime, but rather what can be done to prevent this happening again. Gender issues aside, our government needs to be spending more on understanding and assisting mental health in our community and on domestic violence education and amelioration.

Brindabellas:

16 Sep 2014 9:01:28am

Sorry Stella, I dont agree with you. This very sad event highlights the stress of being a farmer and a carer and father. This man must have been in a very dark place, and in his state of mind, the only way out was to kill the ones he loved, and then himself.

More needs to be done for carers. Often they are too proud to ask for health.

Brindabellas:

Della:

16 Sep 2014 9:08:07am

What made you draw these conclusions? I am more angry now! She had a massive accident fought for her life, then fought to return to her life and then he took it.No way it makes him the most selfish man on the planet, how dare he take all those lives to appease his own? Take your own life not your wife and children.

Chrysanthemum:

16 Sep 2014 9:19:49am

I have noticed that there is far more outrage when a father kills one or more of his children, but not their mother, than when an adult woman is one of the victims. While not wanting to disregard the pain and suffering caused by mental illnesses, most people with depression do not go around murdering people.

sweetchilli:

16 Sep 2014 9:21:52am

I think the premise of the article is flawed and ask who is the collective we that is written about. I am also unsure about the timing of using this event on which to base an article because for the extended family and friends of this family it is no doubt a time of grief and loss. Perhaps spare a thought for them. I think Australians are intelligent and mature enough to discuss domestic violence and disability issues without needing to use tragic events just happened as a basis for articles and comment.

Gavin:

Think again:

I haven't heard anyone dispute that is a case of domestic violence. What I have heard is people discussing whether the intolerable strain placed on the carer contributed to these killings.

If we apply the idea that intolerable strain is not or cannot be factor to be considered then do we also conclude that women who kill their children while suffering from postnatal depression are monsters? And does the feminist argument that the strain of low level long term abuse can excuse the killing of male spouses get thrown out the window?

Most carers end up in a desolate mental state because they receive no practical support whatsoever. They are not superhuman, yet carry a superhuman burden. It's not blaming the victim to state that this contributes to the abuse experienced by some disabled people.

Bev:

16 Sep 2014 10:00:56am

Feminists apply a double standard. No excuses for men, any excuse for a woman. Violence should not be an option ever but feminists muddy the waters by using a different standard and narrative depending on gender.

Chris:

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 3:37:20pm

It is part of a "blaming the victim" spectrum because it implies that they had a role in their own abuse. If they weren't disabled, they wouldn't have been abused, right? Therefore, obviously they had a role in it, even if it was a passive one.

Now, rationally we can accept that they did indeed have a passive role - but the decision to abuse or kill the disabled person was entirely up to the perpetrator. Therefore there's really no reason for anyone except a sentencing judge to discuss the mitigating circumstances.

Think of it this way - two wrongs don't make a right. By mentioning the first "wrong" - the pressure and struggle placed on the male when referencing the second "wrong" - a murder - you are trying to make the second "wrong" a little less wrong.

Other examples: Yes, that mother badly beat her son, but he was a really, really, really annoying brat that no-one could deal with. Why do we even have to mention the second part? She badly beat her son - take the child away from her. Done. The child's problems are a separate concern that should be dealt with, but not as part of the mother's crime.

Example: This man purposely framed his co-worker for a transgression so he would get fired, but the co-worker had been regularly stealing his work and passing it off as his own for years. Again, is the second part really that relevant to the crime? Do we decide not to punish them as severely because there was a "reason" they did it?

There's a reason anyone commits any crime, even "mindless" crimes like vandalism and mugging.

Last time I read the crime section of the papers I didn't see "There was a car hijacking in this suburb last week, but the man involved had been under severe pressure because he was fired and had become drunk and he's really sorry about it."

bobo:

anote:

Sometimes exaggeration to make a point is appropriate. This is a case of overstatement made as if it is sincere belief.

"He is not the victim of either this crime, or of the accident in which Kim Hunt was injured two years ago.". The author does not know this. Sometimes the carer suffers more than the cared.

Would he really have got the support needed if he sought it? Could he see an option where he did not look bad anyway? Should he have just shot himself? Should he have just deserted them? They were not the only options but would have been preferable and is easy to say. Would then not his children have been victims albeit to a lesser degree and why would that be different to him not being a victim of his wife's car accident?

"And even if she hadn't recovered, if she'd remained entirely dependent on support and care for the rest of her life, her murder still isn't excusable." At least that much is true but easy to say.

As for Oscar Pistorius there is the factor of being high profile to be taken into account. Take the ABC's Australian Story as an example. They tend to be stories about the trials and tribulations of high profile people with resources to look after themselves but somehow we should feel sorry for them despite the fact there would be many 'ordinary' Australians doing it tougher. That is why I do not like Australian Story.

Geoff:

16 Sep 2014 9:33:07am

I wonder if Stella Young would also say that: When we hear that a murdered baby had a disability, we find ourselves a little less horrified. But which ever we dress it up, it remains a story of domestic violence.I'd suggest that one measure of the humaneness of our society is the care we show for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

Maxx:

DB:

16 Sep 2014 9:51:17am

Stella, you perhaps have a limited understanding of mental illness? From the media reports on this man he appears to have been well liked and respected in the community, not a man prone to violence, so perhaps he was mentally ill, I would say he certainly was, based on his actions. When I was young and mentally ill I thought the only answer to my distress was to kill myself and my children, now my blood runs cold at the possibility I could have killed us all. If I had had a gun perhaps I too would have done what he did. When one is mentally ill one is not always rational, so surely cannot be judged on the premise that one is. My illness was not apparent to others, though it would have been to a psychiatrist, but not even my family realised I was ill.'Just a little depressed' they would have thought.

firthy:

16 Sep 2014 9:54:27am

I'm stunned the media could be reporting this horrific story in this manner. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves. There is simply no excuse (other than mental incapacity) for this man's actions. Now if he was mentally incapacitated that would be quite different but no-one has suggested that was the case, nor does there appear to be any evidence of this.

AJS:

16 Sep 2014 9:58:37am

Like some of the other comments above - I find this article quite offensive.Blaming journalists for portraying the story in a particular way is equally as wrong as taking this story and using it to justify a particular narrative.If Stella was capable of balance she would also be asking why the suicide rate for males living in rural areas is so disproportionately higher than for females. She would be asking what help can be given to men. Please note that the suicide figures does not include all those late night accidents running off a road and hitting a tree. Looking after a person with a disability may not come naturally to some people, I know I am in trouble if my partner was responsible for me - they will need help and a lot of it. This article is over simplified, not balanced and ultimately will achieve nothing.

Susan Banks:

16 Sep 2014 9:59:30am

This is totally on the money, Stella. An important article. I also reckon the phrase 'domestic violence', though, is a euphemism which weakens its viciousness in the reader's mind, in much the same way that 'child abuse' weakens child rape.

Oaktree:

16 Sep 2014 9:59:37am

I don't believe that a decent man, such as Geoff Hunt is portrayed, should necessarily be held a criminal. Where is your evidence, Stella?

One would imagine that the balance of his mind was disturbed to such an extent that he was not responsible for his actions. Country people are under a lot of stress these days according to health professionals. Farmers are committing suicide at an alarming rate in my local area.

The benefit of the doubt should be extended until after the inquest. Your article is certainly not helpful to his grieving family and friends.

Oaktree:

16 Sep 2014 8:28:20pm

We don't know what happened, but it is possible that he had a sudden nervous breakdown. I refuse to judge the man before the inquest is finalised. None of us can put ourselves in another's shoes. Even with known disturbed people it is quite a process to have them committed to a mental hospital.

nonjudgemental:

16 Sep 2014 10:00:07am

I am gobsmacked that either the author of the piece or the corresponding 'experts' are passing judgement on an incident that unless they live in the community, related, or friends of the deceased really have no idea or insight into how this came about Opinionating on either family member whether it be the male the female or the children makes you all no worse than the media shock jocks! Seriously, you all should 'listen' to yourselves Unless you have access to all the facts and actually know what you are talking about is factual ie straight from the horses mouth so to speak (and not just what has come out in the media) then at least have the common decency to leave off saying anything! To turn this incidence into a gender war, domestic violence or any other personal vendetta against men based on generalization is beyond unbelievable Oh and before you all get bent up, I am a female but I grew up in the bush, and have spent most of my life in rural communities and on the land People in rural and remote communities have some of the highest rates of MENTAL HEALTH issues in Australia this is fact!

Sue:

DB:

16 Sep 2014 12:39:43pm

Reasons and excuses are different things. Despair makes people do things that in their right mind they would never contemplate, when they can see no future for them or their family, when they see death as preferable, better for the children, than life. I don't think anyone can understand this distorted thinking unless they have experienced it, or appreciate the power of such thoughts. I am a loving mother with two wonderful adult offspring, I have never committed any crime, indeed have a fear of ever doing anything wrong, I abhor violence in all its forms, yet I could have killed my family and myself when I was mentally ill. I think 'nonjudgemental's main point is that this is very early in the piece to be discussing such a serious issue when the facts are unknown. Also mental illness is indeed a reason accepted in law, one wonders what kind of society we would be if that was not the case.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 3:55:19pm

I don't want to be insensitive to your struggles DB, but if you had indeed killed your children when you had been under the influence of your deepest depression, would you expect that the law treated you gently and with more focus on helping/curing you than punishing you for that act?

I know personally, while I have been in depressive moods black enough to kill myself, but not others, if I had killed another person during one, I would expect to be punished just like any other murderer. I think very few people set out to commit a murder in a sober state of mind.

DB:

16 Sep 2014 6:00:45pm

I think mental illness is a mitigating circumstance and so does the law, I probably would have been locked up in a mental facility for life if I had killed and I haven't suggested otherwise, I just detest the aggression these acts bring out in posters, everyone seems so quick to judge. Btw, I too would have been dead, so the issue of 'being treated gently' is moot.

Helen:

16 Sep 2014 2:23:51pm

No, this is a feminist issue. Women are dying every week at the hands of husbands, boyfriends and partners. Don't whine about it being a "gender war". It is gendered. We need to fix it. And at the bottom of it, it is about strict codes of masculinity among rural and regional males plus remnant patriarchal codes whereby the little woman and the kids get to be a kind of property to be disposed of.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 3:56:37pm

Yes but Helen if the reason men are committing more crimes against women is because they are suffering more and more mental problems then surely we should try to address those mental problems *as well* as punishing the men who commit violent acts.

It's irresponsible to simply punish without addressing the root cause. That being said, we don't have to give violent men an "out" by saying they were depressed when they did it.

David Kay:

16 Sep 2014 4:28:31pm

You don't sound like your really care about evidence, but you probably should wait for the evidence before you reach your breath-takingly confident conclusions. You might also want to consider whether it could also be about uneducated ideologues refusing to challenge their ideology, and consequently enabling further violence.

Closet Romantic:

16 Sep 2014 6:05:29pm

And women are killing there children ...you can make the abortion argument here if you want I don't but violence against a fetus by your definition. Is the matriarchy asserting rights over children ...we just had a child in Tasmania who survived at twenty five weeks.

Once you make the decision that a person committing violence against someone they believe they control then we get into that weird territory of deciding what is a person and when do those rights begin.

Fix it is actually pretty easy stop favouring the so called alpha male or bad boy

Oscar P is a pretty good example here would a double amputee have had a chance with a beauty like Riva if he hadn't been a winner?

Would he have been a winner if he didn't have a competitive selfish driven personality and a degree of narcissism?

Women do commit more violence against children ...and now I am talking about those that have been born partly due to more forced exposure partly due to the messed up biochemistry of the baby blues.

Violence in our society is problematic but don't favor the bold without thinking that they are self interested

When woman start buying calendars of Social workers, male nurses and scientists and stop buying ones of football players I'll think they are serious

When we get ads where the mum feel successful when her son becomes a volunteer at a care centre rather than wins a sporting event or becomes an iron man.

Men are dying in horrible jobs to provide a lifestyle for there families often violent work place deaths , no the woman might not be the one who delivers the death blow but every person at a boxing match, every parent that values achievement as an individual over mutual benefit, every time we have an image or a thought where a man who does not financially support his family is unworthy contributes to this.

That's the real battle the stuff you write about is just the consequences of the decisions our society made generations ago.

There is an old saying feminists want to ignore the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

splod1:

16 Sep 2014 10:02:21am

Stella, I read Nina Funnell's article, and I was as troubled by it as I was by yours. Funnell wrote,?Equally troubling is the fact that many articles conclude with a list of hotlines for those at risk of suicide (including Lifeline and Mensline) which is valid and crucial. However almost none have bothered to include a hotline for those who have experienced family or intimate partner violence.? For me, this is the key to the article. Rather than simply demonising the father, surely we need to understand why he committed such a despicable act, and how families can be helped to avoid such scenarios in the future. It may be perversely satisfying for some to see the world in terms of villains and victims, but it doesn't solve the problem.You refer to research that "has pointed to narrowly constructed notions of masculinity that emphasise traditional gender roles and the physicality of rural men's labour, plus patterns of alcohol consumption, as risk factors pertinent to regional and remote areas.&#8232;" Go one step further: if gender is largely a cultural construct, and the construct is flawed, then the male, the female and the children are victims of a flawed culture. Both you and Funnell argue for the father to be condemned as a "vicious murderer", akin to a man who walks into a school and kills children and a teacher, and the rest of the family as innocent victims of domestic violence. I have no problem with the characterisation of the wife and children, but your attempt to reduce the participants in this horrendous situation into "villain and victim" feel just as wrong as the media's efforts to soften the blame placed on the father.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 3:58:31pm

splod if the entire family, husband included, were victims of a flawed culture, then we are ALL victims of that flawed culture. Or if you want to get very specific, everyone in a country town is a victim of that culture.

Yet relatively few of us seem to be murdering our entire families. That says the flawed culture is not an excuse that can be used to mitigate this crime.

Mark:

16 Sep 2014 10:02:39am

Who is blaming Mrs Hunt and who is excusing Oscar Pistorius? I haven't heard anybody doing either.

I think the author is making way too many assumptions about what people think about other groups of people. Most of us judge individual situations on their merits and are smart enough to understand when we don't know nearly enough about a situation to judge confidently or at all. Most of us are also capable of feeling, managing and expressing complex emotions and concepts, like understanding that a man was culpable for his wife's death but still sympathising with his own obvious pain.

I am just going through a painful breakup and often not quite sure how to go on. I cannot imagine what would drive a man to kill his wife and children, but I can certainly appreciate (without claiming any unique insight) that a dysfunctional relationship with a loved one can cause unexpected and overwhelming despair. I can empathise for the husband / father without excusing his actions.

Bahbet:

16 Sep 2014 3:25:53pm

Mark, thanks for expressing this, in particular admitting you are 'often not quite sure how to go on', as a result of unremitting emotional pain in the context of a break-up. Please take solace in that this experience is known to all who live and breathe and that as the situation evolves it will alter shape until it is a completely different thing, having become more manageable. It makes me so, so sad to see the care that farmer had clearly put into his crop, the one he drove through to get to the dam, and his apparent blind pain and possibly self blame that he could not care for his family as expertly. Panic that he could not care for himself. Panic and as you write so eloquently ' overwhelming despair '. This utter extinguishing of hope is the danger zone where we all fear to go.Such are the tragedies behind the perilous mental health landscape in rural areas. They are horrific.In the meantime Mark, hang in there my man, life will get better.

Mulky:

16 Sep 2014 10:12:04am

It is terrible that you seek to tell others how to feel. When someone kills another the circumstances may change the motivation and understanding the motivation may help prevent similar events in future but understanding does not mean that you have to dismiss the crime.

Furthermore I dispute that the husband was not a victim in the wife's accident. Did not his life change forever and wouldn't be have suffered hardship as a result? You frequently write articles about the lack of support for disabilities and then complete disregard the strain and responsibility of carers.

hidi:

16 Sep 2014 10:25:22am

I don't agree with Stella at all. In referring to this tragedy as a gender based crime when most can clearly see this tragic event was more about mental issues is very sad. Why would a sad event like this be used as a comment piece in the media.

Redfish:

16 Sep 2014 10:25:58am

You must do a bit of detective work on the side Stell, perhaps you assist the coroner, far as I am aware there has been no finding as to what actually happened. To then try and bend this absolutley tragic event to push your own barrow is very poor form.

Aja:

16 Sep 2014 10:30:22am

Stella, there are a lot of things you say I wholeheartedly agree with.

To say that "when we hear that a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability, we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified" is not right at all. Every life of every person is sacred and should be protected and it is obvious that this father and husband had reached a breaking point.

This is a classic case of people in the bush not having enough available services and help to deal with such trauma and this father obviously saw these murders as the only way out. It is the saddest of circumstances that he could not leave them all behind and just take his own life.

It is a tragedy of immense proportions. My heart goes out to the family left behind.

Ann:

I agree we need mental health services in the country - very, very badly.

But even a total lack of mental health support can't excuse a man for seeing the murder of his own family as the "only way out".

Most depressed people only seek to kill themselves. To kill your whole family says you either view your family as your "property/responsibility" to do with as you will, or you simply in the end don't care what their wishes are compared to your own.

Put it this way; if I was so depressed I decided to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, but I was angry at the world and wanted to take someone with me, grabbing a stranger as I jumped and killing us both, would you say that my murder of them had "mitigating" circumstances because of how depressed I was? Or would you say I was a selfish ass?

Aja:

Ann, I hear what you are saying, but there for the grace of God we all go.

I am not seeking to excuse the man in this instance, merely to point out that everybody has a breaking point and unless we were inside that mans head, we will never know what he was thinking.

Despite what you may think it was obvious that his thinking was not normal and as for your analogy of jumping off a bridge, your choice in that instance would have been logical to say the least.

It is one thing to generalize and say "most depressed people take their own life" but that is far from the truth. As for saying he thought of his family as "property/responsibility" I think you take too much of an attitude about that statement unless you have qualifications in the field of psychology/psychiatry .

If you have never had thoughts of suicide, or even got to that point, you do not know how anybody handles their depression or why they do anything.

Be a little more kind and feel sad that he got to the point where he DID think it was the only way out. It is very easy to be sitting on the outside looking in and passing judgement.

Tracy:

16 Sep 2014 10:32:03am

Well said Stella. The reporting of the murder ran along the usual lines; talk about the tragedy of the man and white wash the horror that the victims experienced. It was appalling, but certainly not surprising when the woman herself was blamed for her own murder and that of her children. It is such a relief to see people, women especially, writing in response to these distorted pieces on domestic violence. There will be no change otherwise. I am still haunted by other pieces of disgraceful reporting of the murder children and women, where the focus was on the killer and his value in the community, and the violence was simply ignored. We must name the perpetrator and stop minimising men's violence against women and children. It is not about mental illness, it's about the savagry of masculinity. Of course these comments and this article will attract a little of that aggression, which only goes to illustrate the problem we have with men and their violence.

kevh:

16 Sep 2014 1:50:03pm

Hi. I promise that Tracy will get no aggression from me in response to her own..........

Just a couple of points though.

1. It seems to me that both Tracy and Stella are pushing a story here that's essentially non-existent. They seem to have decided that folk are saying something like 'the wife brought this on herself because she was injured in a car accident and made the poor bastard's life a misery'. I've yet to see any evidence of such a narrative doing the rounds. (That includes in the local area around Lockhart, an area of which I'm a resident). Never let the truth get in the way of good axe grind I guess.

2. Mental illness is real, regardless of whether Tracy and Stella acknowledge it or not. If Geoff Hunt was genunely suffering from a mental illness, and if he actually killed his family because of it, then it is a tragedy beyond words. Importantly though, by acknowledging the tragedy, we do not support the action, or condone the outcome.

Here's a screaming headline for both Tracy and Stella: mental illness and it's oftimes awful consequences is not gender specific. It doesn't come pre-packaged with ovaries. I can only assume that Tracy and Stella direct their barbs equally at those mothers who 'murder' their children, not lost in the depths of post natal depression, but caught in the savagery of wanton femininity. Of course they don't. Neither should they. It would be ridiculous, empty, hard hearted and insulting.

No-one knows what actually happened on that farm. The coroner may find that out. Unfortunately, that utter lack of certainty won't stop the meaningless speculation. It will also fail to silence the axe grinders like Stella and Tracy from seeking to make inappropriate agenda driven mileage out of what is an awful tragedy for all concerned.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 4:15:50pm

Well I'm female and depressed, and I would hold a woman that killed her child during post-natal depression as being fully responsible.

Maybe because I've been inside depression and know how you can have the desire to hurt others... and I did hurt people, mentally and sometimes physically... I am still 100% responsible for those actions no matter how warped my thinking was at the time.

qxeau:

"Is disability relevant in the lives of individual people? Of course it is. But it must never be treated as an excuse for violence."

Stella. it becomes tiresome to read such gross overgeneralisations. Exactly where and who is treating disability as an excuse for violence in this case? Nowhere that I have read.

Face facts, Stella. You don't actually know the facts. You know what you've read in the media, just like the rest of us. Yet somehow you feel you have to be a flagbearer of imagined guilt for the 'we' who is thinking such things. Well, this 'we' is not and has not thought such things.

If you, Stella, are thinking these things, that's your issue. It's no reason to project your own feelings onto the wider 'we'.

Quit trawling the 'net for stories relating to disability that you can twist to your own morbid agenda.

Helen:

16 Sep 2014 2:28:20pm

How nice for you, qxeau, that you can dismiss disability as a 'morbid agenda'. For many people, stella included, it's something which affects their every move and is associated with structural inequality.Yes, you only need to read the comments above to see that people *are* treating disability as an excuse for violence, by stating that the duties of a carer would have put Hunt under an intolerable strain. Guess what. Mass killings are not an acceptable response to intolerable strain.

qxeau:

Helen: I think you know that I did not dismiss disability as a morbid agenda. Your attempt to twist my words simply reveals more of your own bias.

Stella's morbid agenda is the thrusting of generalisations upon individuals, insinuating that 'we' think this, or 'we' think that.

I think, as many comments today reflect, many of 'we' don't think at all what Stella is asserting and her accusation of such is insulting and patronising.

Stella has a track record of using any story she can find to try and convince the world how much of a victim people with a disability are and how awful those of us without disabilities are for our apparent discrimination and lack of compassion. Which, in my opinion, is a morbid agenda.

David Kay:

Mary2:

16 Sep 2014 10:48:40am

Unfortunately any violence against a current or former intimate partner is still considered as somehow less horrific than violence which occurs outside the home.

Witness the huge outcry and law changes around the country after what we now have to call 'coward punches' in nightclub districts. And yet, how many people die from random violence in the CBD compared to how many are murdered by their 'loved ones'?

I don't believe that the outcry is due to the fact that the majority of king hit victims are men (although there may be an element of double-standard in there); it seems kind of obvious that the difference is that no one 'deserves' to be hit by a stranger but if someone who knows you attacks you, you must be somewhat to blame.

Steve_C:

There is a tendency not only in the media (because the media is just a reflector of human behaviour), but across all of humanity, to let death re-write history and perceptions.

Even the most vile individuals can become redeemed after their deaths.

The number of times I've heard people who had nothing nice to say about someone, get up at the aforementioned person's funeral and wax lyrical about "how wonderful they were" is too numerous to be a statistical aberration!!

It's actually quite disappointing that people one knows can be so hypocritical! I tend to believe that if you find someone repugnant while they're alive and kicking, the simple fact of dying or being killed or killing before topping yourself, doesn't change a damned thing...

Having said that - I didn't know any of the individuals involved in the tragedy you write about; and apart from what the media outlets inform me of, I see the whole sad saga of events as pure and meaningless tragedy with no worthy outcome for any of those involved, apart from the outcomes that people who struggle to find some meaning in life desire to project onto events such as this in order to obtain the meaning that sits most comfortably with their own personalities and personal prejudices.

I just wish that humanity and individual humans could find a way to walk away from these kinds of situations before they turn into these tragedies - but, it seems that such a desire is as futile as hoping for peace and goodwill.

As far as I can see, there's always something worth living for until the day nature otherwise.

Thanks for the article, and I live in the hope that one day we see ourselves as all being disabled to some degree or another (and as we all get older, that's not just possible, it's a certainty, what with the attrition to our bodies and minds that age brings!!) - at which time this whole blood pressure raising issue will become moot...

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 4:21:34pm

I get the impression that some people just view funerals as having a "tradition" that you have to follow - trying to say the nicest thing possible about the deceased. They don't even consider telling the truth; that's just not what you do at funerals!

Having been to funerals of people who genuinely could have nothing bad said about them, and funerals of people who their relatives struggled to say something nice about, I've found the difference to be morbidly amusing.

But that won't change anytime soon. Even if the dead person was an utter b*****d, the still-sensitive feelings of the living are more important than kicking them now that they're "down".

A Carer:

16 Sep 2014 10:57:25am

I a carer of my profoundly disabled son and have been so for 26 years, and more recently a sole carer. Life is hard, there is no practical support of any value, my respite funding allows me 80 hours of support worker time PER YEAR, and sometimes I am very sad, and depressed, and financially and emotionally walk a tightrope. Despite all of this however, and please note I am not looking for hero status at all, nothing I repeat nothing would drive me to ending my son's life and to suggest that anything should excuse a parent for murdering his children and/or his disabled partner is excusable is abhorrent. Walk away, kill yourself, but do not deprive those you profess to love of their lives and futures.

Ann:

A Carer:

16 Sep 2014 10:27:34pm

Thanks Ann, it is nice to have someone acknowledge the hardships that family carers face and although I have written articles, it seems that the issue is sometimes too uncomfortable for media to consider publishing words direct from the horses' mouth. However in the face of this unimaginable tragedy and the grief of those left to face life without the ones they have loved, it is a story for another time and place.

Reinhard:

16 Sep 2014 10:59:24am

Thanks Stella , I believe than any decent human being should be no more or less mortified than they were before.I am also appalled at how many people contemplating suicide somehow decide they are justified in taking their entire family with them. That level of insanity is the real "disability" here

Sue:

16 Sep 2014 11:00:44am

News.com.au was censoring debate with a bias agenda. I left a comment which was opposed to their view and it was rejected. Does News.com.au have a blacklist or is it held hostage by the MRA?I'm wondering how many others who were outraged by Angela Mollard's article ?I don?t blame him? for deaths (title later changed) had comments rejected.

We will never see a reduction in Domestic Violence when we have media portraying the perpetrator as a victim. The family and community are obviously still in shock. To interview family members so soon was incredibly callous.One comment stated how "there's always two sides of the story". Yeah, but we'll never hear the story from those poor three kids who were murdered will we.

Geoff Hunt was a murderer. His valued his pride over asking for help. This is a coward, not a victim. He could have walked away.

As a mother with a disability raising a child with a disability, I find it extremely sad that a life can be perceived as disposable. This horrific event highlights many issues.

-Domestic violence towards women and children-Violence towards the disabled-Mens inability to communicate and seek assistance.-Lack of support services for carers.

Also, will these murders be included in Domestic Violence homicide statistics?

Rusty:

16 Sep 2014 12:21:56pm

"This horrific event highlights many issues:-Domestic violence towards women and children -Violence towards the disabled-Mens inability to communicate and seek assistance.-Lack of support services for carers."

Absolutely, yes yes yes.I would argue the third and fourth are more significant in this case than the first two, though. The original article only really addresses the first, which is why it doesn't portray the full picture.

No-one is making excuses for the perpetrator, as he should never have done what he did. But everyone can feel empathy for someone who suffers from the third and fourth to such an extant that it drives someone from being "a decent bloke" into doing the sorts of things he wouldn't normally do. Clearly he suffered from something most of us could not understand. It is possible to feel disgusted but empathetic at the same time, and pretending it's not is just a sign of a simple mind.

Sue:

16 Sep 2014 4:18:58pm

Unless an intruder was the cause in which the media and reports so far have not suggested, any violence in the home perpetrated by a family member is "domestic violence". As for no evidence of domestic violence, well let's see, we have 4 victims shot dead by a family member. It's the final solution for perpetrators of violence.

Seeing there has been a great emphasis on Kim Hunt's acquired disability in the media and suggestion that it was very stressful for her husband to manage, we can also hypothesise that the stress of suddenly becoming a primary carer and carer of someone with a disability may have been a factor as to why violence was used.

It is well documented that women with disabilities are at greater risk of violence.

Jade:

16 Sep 2014 6:50:29pm

Except that not even the media which has focused on Kim's disability has any evidence to support the suggestion that it was in any way related to this crime. It shows an appalling bias regarding disability in the community that because this crime happened to a family which has a member with a disability that we focus on that as an obvious reason. It demonstrates how prevalent the problem is in society that disability advocates, and people with a disability have also jumped to that default assumption, albeit landing at a different place.

However, there is not one shred of evidence that Kim's disability or the stress of caring for her was a factor in this crime.

Similarly, while this crime happened in the home, and among family, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion apparently taken as fact that Geoff Hunt was violent towards his family in any way prior to this incident.

I find it despicable that so many in this discussion are so quick to attempt to rationalise this crime as a typical domestic violence crime, when the evidence suggests something far more insidious. For a man who, from every skerrick of available evidence, was apparently the exemplar of a loving family man, to suddenly and rapidly turn violent to this extent suggests far deeper motivations and problems within this family or community. Problems that are worth investigating and discussing, without arrogant, hurtful, and possibly completely inaccurate assumptions being made about this man based on a shocking crime, which apparently happened completely out of the blue.

Sue:

"there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion apparently taken as fact that Geoff Hunt was violent towards his family in any way prior to this incident"

Whether there was ongoing violence in the relationship is irrelevant, I think murdering your children and wife kind of trumps all acts of violence?

Most domestic violence happens behind closed doors with many perpetrators often seen as outstanding public citizens so how would you know what evidence there is or isn't. All we have is an extreme act of violence, a family shot to death. Isn't that enough for you?You show a lot of empathy for the murderer (and that's what he is) but yet none for his courageous wife and inoncent children? Where is their compassion? Where is their justice? Where is their voice?

I find it despicable that you should want to blame anyone but the perpetrator himself for murdering his wife and children.What message does this send to the public, that it's OK to murder if you can't handle the pressure of life? That you will be forgiven and victimised?Your mentality is dangerous and could ultimately cost more lives by excusing heinous violence by making murder an option.As for happening out of the blue, there are always warning signs that somethings about to give.

Maybe for a moment think about those who discovered those bodies, the bodies of defenceless children.

Coursemgmt:

16 Sep 2014 11:10:05am

I agree with the comments made in the article - some of the media coverage of this terrible crime needs a reality check. It was a shocking murder of an innocent woman and three children. Comments on other issues or conjecture on the killer's motivations don't help anyone very much. Unfortunately the murderer is not around to be punished.

It is not dissimilar unfortunately to some of the press coverage of the murder of Glen Turner at Croppa Creek on 29 July this year. Again, a shocking murder where press coverage has been diluted with a separate agenda. Apparently land clearing is somehow relevant? It was a filthy and intentional crime, deserving of the harshest punishment.

foxlike:

16 Sep 2014 11:15:02am

Don't have to scroll down too far in the comments to find the tired old 'yes but women kill too' argument.

Simply an extension of the 'oh but what about the poor men' school of thought, which pops up instantly whenever women's rights or indeed their lives, health, or safety are discussed. Some people simply must try to keep the focus on the 'rights' of men - and then try to claim it's not a gender issue!

Sorry Stella that your absolutely correct and courageous piece has been hijacked in that way, but it happens to every discussion about women.

Yes, folks, violence is a gender issue. Check those stats again. The majority of victims of violence overall are men - victims of other men. The majority of DV victims are women - victims of men. And in this case, yes, it is right to point out that it is a disability issue.

I had not read that the wife of this murderer had had any kind of illness or disability, but I agree with you that when illness or disability is raised, there is a tendency among those looking to blame women for men's violence generally, to use them as an excuse. Dishonest, pathetic, inexcusable.

Blake:

16 Sep 2014 1:08:00pm

I've scrolled throughout and haven't found one "women kill too" argument. I assume you've read lots of feminist articles and seen typical male responses with the whole "what about us" response. Fortunately this isn't the case and such comments are unrepresentative of actuality with this context.

TomCat:

16 Sep 2014 2:06:07pm

It makes angry but not surprised that people are ignoring the facts. first of all, immediately when sometimes mentions gender, disability or race, it is overturned and people in power feel the need to ignore it. The fact is yes, we can feel sorry for him, we can make excuses for him. Suicide is actually a result of mental illness. however if he was a man was not white, not from a high status, had low income and not classified as a stereotyped "family man". These comments would not exit. That's why it's infuriating people are making these comments. It's completely a double standard. People are choosing not to look at the facts.She was a victim of domestic violence, she was a victim due to her disability.Women with disabilities are at the highest risk of domestic violence.The car accident was a terrible accident He was a victim too. I am sick of the media portraying criminals as not people, without feelings or people who don't deserve to get help.Society was too late.We failed Him, we failed her and their children.people like living in a fantasy and not look at reality because it's comfortable. The media, criminal justice system and societal norms are the criminals here.

blue waffle:

tom the accountant:

16 Sep 2014 11:32:48am

What the author isn't considering is the human trait of empathy in her analysis.

She immediately blames the woman's disability as the reason we the judging masses (and unfortunately she is probably targeting able bodied males more than any others with her comments) have softened on the perpetrator. She then likens his actions, and our more extreme revulsion, to a school massacre.

What she has not considered is the impact of the general disconnect we experience in life due to the limitations of our own experiences. Using her example of the school massacre, we are instantly repelled by this as we cannot imagine circumstances where we would be involved in this. It is so far removed from our own experience that we cannot grasp the mindset of the perpetrator.However when we move on to the married father of three every parent, husband, wife or even anyone who has ever loved someone suddenly has something in common. Because we can draw these parallels we start to wonder how we would act in the same situation and I believe because of this are less quick to condemn lest because we can't shake that nervous feeling of "would I do the same? would I be stronger?"

When you add to this the power of the relationship this man had with other people, which other commenters have noted already, its not that hard to see why people's attitudes have softened. It is however hard to see how the woman being disabled has dehumanised her to us in any way. I think the author is being narrow minded.

splod1:

16 Sep 2014 11:33:46am

This is a tragedy in which there were five victims. Each victim deserves our sympathy. Splitting it into "evil male homicidal villain" and "innocent female/child victims of male domestic violence" achieves nothing. Let us address the cultural construct of the aggressive male identity and admit that we have a sick culture that makes victims of us all. When someone commits such a horrendous act, I want to understand why, and help change the conditions that created the problem.

foolking:

16 Sep 2014 11:37:21am

This is a horribly skewed argument Stella, you are citing lack of empathy on behalf of a gender and an individual and yet are committing exactly the same offence. Not one of your best, I hope you don't see this scenario the same way in 10 years, I don't think it is a fair assessment at all.

danielle:

16 Sep 2014 11:38:04am

For 46 years myself and my family have lived with the tragedy of a member of our family (my mother) who had a horrific car accident that left her brain injured. These injuries had profound effects on her mental, cognitive and emotional state and resulted in permanent physical disability. I was a baby and my father lost the life he thought he would have. For the next 32 years after the accident the stress and grief and trauma that we endured as a result of my mother's behaviour and her physical disabilities left us permanently scarred psychologically. My mother nor any of us ever had any counselling or help at all. There were times when I wished she would take her own life (as she often threatened to do). There were times my father was at breaking point. The damage rippled out to affect all the relationships in our extended family. Do not presume to know or judge someone who lives with the complex and devastating results day in and day at intimate range. I can understand the unrelenting strain and trauma and grief this man must have been under. I have lived it. My father died of cancer. He was a loving and dutiful husband to my mother through all of those years but it came at a huge price. The story of this family is sad beyond measure and all four are victims.

Nick:

Is that not one of the benefits of a democratic justice system? That when a crime is committed the full context is explained and used in deciding on the case.

When a wife murders her husband we are shocked, when we hear it was because she was being abused we give her a lesser sentence. FACT.

Context is everything in these cases. It should not be this man that is on trial but rather the culture of men in rural areas not seeking help and not talking about mental health problems. For a man who is described as a loving doting husband to perpetrate such a crime should be ringing alarm bells for our Government's mental health projects.

Cath:

16 Sep 2014 11:56:09am

At last some press about the very issue that has been troubling me with this story. Like everyone else I was horrified by the events in Lockhart. Somehow it seemed even more tragic as they seemed to be such a respectable farming family and not the expected types who usually fall victims to this type of crime. However well respected Geoff Hunt was he should be remembered for what he is and that is a mass murderer. How else would the law have dealt with him if he had not died at his own hand?

Closet Romantic:

16 Sep 2014 6:17:22pm

I can't wait for you to say that to his mother

His wife's mother and family have the right of accusation... Not those of is so far removed

Judged not lest you be judged ...no it's not about religion it's about realising that there are a whole lot of victims to this crime the community, family and friends of the murdered and murderer, they seem to be at a confused lost how kind of you to give them clarity without knowing them.

Chris:

16 Sep 2014 11:56:38am

This was written with all the subtlety and (death of) understanding of the complexity of the situation of a 7th grader doing her first general studies essay. Standing on a soap box and talking about understanding disabilities to people who have essentially already lost their life partners due brain injury is a gross oversimplification. And simple domestic violence? Hardly. Having a profoundly disabled wife likely coupled with drought difficulties and being essentially a single father with a dependant wife, there's little doubt there was severe mental distress / illness involved. Nobody is making excuses. People are merely trying to understand why it happened - in real domestic violence situations, this is often almost inevitable and doesn't need explanation. Doesn't apply to this case. And finally, he is the perpetrator but also a victim.

chris:

16 Sep 2014 10:35:15pm

Who said he wasn't responsible?

Most men and women who beat their partners are mentally ill. Many have very low IQs and poor coping skills. They should seek and be offered help. Only a small number would be simply evil, but they do exist (often there is a large wealth or social status disparity where one partner feels the other is their "property"). All people are moral agents though and are responsible for what they do.

Women who beat their children, those who teach children from a very early age that violence is the answer to controlling behaviour, they are responsible too. That's where it all starts.

SJW:

Firstly, I don't know who this "we" is that you keep referring to. I'm yet to meet someone who believes that because one of the victims was disabled the crime is not so severe.

"Yet again, the blame for violence committed by a man is placed squarely at the feet of a woman." Ridiculous. Who is blaming the wife for being shot and killed?

To paint this incident as a cut-and-dry case of domestic violence is utterly absurd and offensive to the family of the victims.

Functioning, happy, healthy people do not murder their partners and children. Yes, this is an awful crime which cannot be excused for any reason, but it is so important to understand "why" it happened. Labelling him a senseless murderer or dismissing this as a "typical" case of men committing domestic violence is utterly senseless in itself.

How did a seemly decent family man get to the point where he murders his wife and children, then drives to a field and kills himself? Mental health awareness in this country is a joke, especially in rural communities.

It is far more important to understand why this happened, and how it possibly could have happened, rather than labelling the incident with the level of acute ignorance and social stereotyping, which the author has chosen to do.

Rusty:

16 Sep 2014 12:07:42pm

I can understand the blatant confusion here... the pattern of death is exactly the same as if someone murdered their family out of hatred, then killed themselves out of guilt.But everyone needs to realise: in these sorts of instances, the perpetrator would have *started* with "I'm going to kill myself".

From there he would have rationalised to himself that his wife would be better off dead than trying to cope with the loss of her carer.From there he would have rationalised to himself that his children would be better off dead than trying to cope with the loss of both their parents.

The empathy some people feel for Geoff is because the entire thing would never have happened if he didn't start with wanting to kill himself. THAT is the tragedy you can feel empathy for.Whatever brought him to the conclusions that he should kill his family first is not excuseable and never will be, but this is not a case of "domestic violence", more a case of severe depression and suicide accompanied by other irrational thought patterns. By all accounts, he was a decent bloke and loved his family - clearly he *thought* he was doing the right thing by them.Most would agree he was wrong, but running off and assuming that he hated his family and attacked them in a murderous rage, then killed himself out of guilt or something is completely misunderstanding the sort of emotions the perpetrators go through, and really derails the bigger issue here - the effect of mental health issues.

James:

16 Sep 2014 12:23:20pm

I never met Mr Hunt or his family. I have no idea what caused him to do this. It appears that a lot of people on this site seem to think they do. As for Ms Young's assertion that "we" feel less horrified because the man, in her opinion, killed his wife and kids because of the strain of caring for his disabled wife is offensive. I like most people I know were absolutely horrified by the event. I have close friends in Lockhart who are devastated by the actions of Mr Hunt. Ms Young relies on the OurWatch report which in turn relies on the ABS report from 2012 on violence to make her assertions regarding the number of violent attacks experienced by women and the disabled. A close examination of the report shows that the ABS admits that the small sample size in some of the areas of inquiry may lead to significant distortions in the result and they need to be treated with caution. Ms Young treats the data like gospel truth and makes claims to which she nor anyone else is entitled to make.

Violence of any kind is abhorrent and should be deplored but for Ms Young to single out this issue and to make such unsubstantiated claims is not acceptable.

Fair Go:

16 Sep 2014 12:23:24pm

I'm surprised the ABC even allowed this piece to be printed. While there has been speculation about the cause of the deaths of the Hunt Family, the facts have yet to be ascertained, presumably at some inquest. Instead, Stella bases part of her article on a number of hypotheses. No one is condoning domestic violence against anyone, disabled or otherwise, but Stella would be better advised to refrain from speculating about the cause of the Hunt Family deaths. It demonstrates a lack of consideration for others. Ironical for someone who demands others respect her.

foolking:

16 Sep 2014 12:29:29pm

I accept that a disability and or being female could easily and does attract more cowardly acts with real or perceived vulnerability, but the tragedy referred to doesn't develop any point in my opinion and isn't handled carefully enough.I see no scapegoat difference in any form of abuse or violence in how the public may perceive.The author touched on systemic issues and the role of media in shaping people's values. I look forward to reading articles that step out of disability and address this unnecessary corruption of quality of life as well, from a mind that has sharp and unusual insight.

Simsim:

16 Sep 2014 12:32:03pm

No one is blaming the victim Stella. Those sympathetic towards Geoff Hunt simply recognise the immense strain he must have been under and the helplessness he must have felt to take the actions he did. Domestic violence is one issue in this tragedy; the other one is of a man under great strain who did not receive the help he should have. By choosing to portray Hunt as an evil killer, are you trying to absolve yourself from the responsibility we as a society have towards those suffering from mental health issues?

danielle:

16 Sep 2014 4:42:57pm

I trust you have never suffered from deep depression or other mental illness? It is almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't been ill in this way what goes on relentlessly in your head. Love would very likely have had everything to do with it as confounding as that is to accept.

Ann:

16 Sep 2014 5:54:16pm

danielle I have been in the circumstance of deep depression and also unfortunately have hurt some of my loved ones as a result.

When I was suicidal I thought that it was best for my family that they didn't have to deal with me anymore; that this was the loving option. Of course that's utter crap. I wanted to suicide and was painting myself a picture that made it more palatable.

The whole point of mental illness is that your thinking is wrong. You're not doing things out of love. You're doing them out of selfishness, anger and desperation.

I believe the depressed need gentle handling and to not be made to feel guilty for being depressed and having those thoughts, but on the flip side, romanticising it as you do and saying "really their actions came from love" is just as noxious as telling depressed people it's all their fault and to get over it.

peter of mitcham:

16 Sep 2014 12:37:28pm

I have said it before and I'll say it now, Stella. For a disability advocate you sure say some funny things. I have not heard one scintilla of opinion saying the crime is any less because of a victim's disability. Where's your evidence of this dimunition of the crime because of a victom's state?

Mark:

16 Sep 2014 12:37:56pm

This article focuses on what may be a genuine issue, but I am not sure if it is relevant in this case. I also think (and in my own experience) it seems to lack a good understanding of the wellbeing of families of people with mental health issues.

Fred:

16 Sep 2014 12:40:36pm

"When we hear of a crime like this, we quite rightly recoil in horror. And yet, when we hear that a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability, we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified. As though her status as a disabled woman gives us a little more empathy towards the perpetrator of violence. It's victim blaming at its very worst."

What a load of rubbish. Stella makes a bald, unsubstantiated assertion and attributes this the 'we', presumably the population. This whole article is grossly offensive in that (i) the cause of the Hunt Family's deaths has yet to be ascertained but Stella bases part of her argument on unsubstantiated rumors (ii) she erroneously attributes some actions or thoughts on the whole population. A very poor article.

struck dumb:

16 Sep 2014 12:43:58pm

Stella, not all disabilities are visible; everyone knew about her problems, but how about his? Was he suffering from severe depression leading to mental illness because of the strain? Were there other problems as well? None of us has walked a mile in his shoes, any more than we have walked in her shoes or yours, so we simply have the reports of the people who knew them, and even they did not know what happened behind closed doors.It doesn't excuse what has happened. Murder is murder. However it does suggest that there may be far more to this story than we will ever know, or have the right to know, and you are jumping to conclusions that should not be made.

Josh:

16 Sep 2014 12:45:03pm

I'd like to know why the author automatically assumed the wife to be a victim because of her gender? How do you know they weren't in it together? There are plenty of examples of couples making suicide pacts, how do you known they didn't agree it was too hard to go on, and didn't want to submit their children to a life without them, and agreed it was better to kill them? I'm not saying this is the case, I don't know, it hasn't been reported in the press what the contents of the note are, that I am aware of. I am aware that I am tired of seeing knee-jerk reactions assuming men are culpable and women are poor victims. There are contemporary studies that attest to women being at least as likely to initiate domestic violence as men, but two things distort the popular understanding of domestic violence - the consequences are often worse when men are violent, for obvious physical reasons, and men are far less likely to report it than women. It seems the idea of the 'woman as victim' has become a great sacred cow in todays society, unable to questioned and perpetuated by articles like this.

Helen:

16 Sep 2014 2:34:03pm

Josh, it's not a sacred cow, it's statistical fact borne out by stats from here and from overseas. Women are more likely to be victims of DV. And they are more likely to suffer serious injury or death from it. It's fact, not some feminist conspiracy.

Fred:

16 Sep 2014 3:10:05pm

It may be a statistical fact but that doesn't necessarily explain the circumstances surrounding the case in question. Statistical facts are, generally, generalisations from many cases that may not apply to individual cases.

Andrew:

16 Sep 2014 12:50:36pm

Thank you for this article. The real bias shown in this tragedy is the willingness to ameliorate the terrible crime of murder because the killer was the husband and father. It is WORSE for a man to kill his partner and children than anyone else to. Yet the Pistorius case and this one show a willingness to excuse the most terrible crime. If a stranger perpetrated these crimes they would be justly vilified. The most common victims of murder in our country are women and children of the men who should be protecting them, it is time this is recognised and acted against.

frangipani:

16 Sep 2014 1:36:37pm

To be honest, I see no resemblance between the Pistorious case and this one. Pistorious was a gun-happy, arrogant, aggressive jerk who lost his temper. This man was a decent, ordinary guy who lost his mental balance under severe stress. What he did was horrible, but, unlike Pistorious, I doubt he was capable of really understanding what it was he was doing.

Anon:

Regardless of how these events are reported, it will neither prevent nor bring on the next domestic murder in this country.

All this does, to my mind, is worsen the pain for the remaining Hunt family, friends, and the communities of Lockhart and Boree Creek.

Let's not forget this is not just a story, its the very real, harrowing and distressing truth for those grieving right now. Why make it worse? It won't achieve better outcomes for the next family anyway.

Joanne:

16 Sep 2014 1:11:48pm

Dear Author,I feel that there was no need to bring Oscar into this discussion at all. 1st of all-he was not found GUILTY of INTENDED Murder-he may have been guilty of being stupid,quick to shoot & ask questions later & of gross negligence & paranoia.

He did not try to cover it up,he did not run away. He admitted what he had done & showed absolute remorse. Compare this with OJ Simpson & Baden Powell.There is a big difference when it was a stupid accident committed to a deliberate PLANNED Murder & then non-remorseful lying,saying you did not do it..

Oscar has been judged & was not found Guilty of INTENTIONAL MURDER. We must respect the courts decision. It is a tragedy & he did do the wrong thing...no argument there.

Men that deliberately Murder their women partners & sometimes even their own children they are supposed to love, are just plain evil & abusing the absolute power they have in our Society.

Those poor women & the children too. Imagine,the man that had vowed before God & family & friends to love you,for better or worse,has decided to become your Assassin & then tries to cover it up with lies,showing no remorse whatsoever.Now that is pure EVIL;(

No wonder unmarried women live longer-your husband is the person most likely to murder you in our society & usually when you have decided to leave him/divorce him.Now that is a CONTROL ISSUE!

Cantsay:

16 Sep 2014 1:16:06pm

This is an instance of family annihilation. There is research, because, sadly there are enough examples to study.

Even Wikipedia offers this..there are four groups: anomic, disappointed, self-righteous and paranoid...the anomic killer sees his family purely as a status symbol; when his economic status collapses, he sees them as surplus to requirements. The disappointed killer seeks to punish the family for not living up to his ideals of family life. The self-righteous killer destroys the family to exact revenge upon the mother, in an act that he blames on her. Finally, the paranoid killer kills their family in what they imagine to be an attempt to protect them from something even worse.

With only the media reports to go on, I could possibly rule out economics, because their financial situation seemed ok and probably I could perhaps rule out revenge(?). So that leaves this particular perpetrator as either disappointed or paranoid-protective.

But getting into the mind of anyone is difficult, getting inside the motivations of a murderer who is dead is even more difficult.

But Stella is right, on focussing on whys and explaining away the perpetrator, we do this at the expense of remembering there are four murdered victims here who will never get an explanation.

frangipani:

16 Sep 2014 1:19:56pm

Frankly, I'm appalled by this article. Yes, this man murdered his wife and three children. Yes, she was partially disabled, and her slow and difficult recovery placed him under stress. All of that is true. Yes, he did something appalling. Also true.

But where does Stella get off with the assumption that the only disabilities are physical ones. What about mental ones. The man seems to have been suffering pretty serious mental stress, probably depression, and that is every bit as much a disability as his wife's brain injury was.

The man did a terrible thing, not because he was a terrible human being but because he couldn't think straight any more, couldn't see how wrong what he was doing was. It doesn't lessen the horror of what he did, but it gives us some insight into the state he was in to do it. And yes, that does mean he gets some empathy, and so he should.

Jade:

Stella, you, like Nina, are making some pretty egregious assumptions, and it might be suggested, deliberately misinterpreting people's statements and twisting the facts to suit your agendas.

The fact is, this case does not present many of the characteristics typical of this case. People are not highlighting Ms Ward's disability as a reason for her death, they are using it to indicate the strangeness of a man who by every piece of evidence available, was up to this point a loving, kind, patient carer.

There is absolutely no evidence that Geoff Hunt, prior to this incident, was in any way violent or abusive towards his family. By all accounts, this family was an exemplar for their community, prior to this incident.

It is crucial for us to develop an understanding of why this crime happened. It is equally critical to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of shoehorning this into a typical domestic violence crime, and wash our hands of the matter.

Demonising this man as some kind of abusive monster, when all indications are that he was not in any way abusive does a great deal to trivialise domestic violence, and while it may help us rest easy, it does not in any way assist us in preventing another crime of this nature in the future.

Making an honest, thoughtful attempt to understand why an apparently loving husband and father suddenly and without any warning signs, shot his wife and children, may help us to better understand what went on.

Clearly, something went rapidly and horribly wrong in the Hunt household to change an apparently loving family man into a murderer. Stereotyping this case, and ignoring anything which doesn't fit does a disservice not just to the Hunt family, but victims of domestic violence everywhere.

Josh:

16 Sep 2014 1:33:32pm

Again I ask (refer to my earlier comment) why does everyone, the author and all of the commentators, assume the wife was a poor victim because of her gender? There are many examples of couples making suicide pacts, how do you know she wasn't in on it? How do you know they didn't decide together that it was too hard to go on and it was easiest to kill the kids quickly rather than submit them to knowing their parents had suicided or possibly finding them? No one knows. I'm not saying this was the case, but no one here knows what was in the note, or what really happened. Why do you all just assume he was the sole killer and that's it?

Paul:

Paul:

16 Sep 2014 1:48:48pm

This article by Stella neither informs, edifies or amuses. Instead it's one long piece of borderline misandry and a desperate attempt to change the focus from a family tragedy to Stella's own problems by the rather vague association that both Stella and the murdered wife suffered a disability.Equating a man who by all accounts loved and adored his wife and family with a complete stranger who walks into a school and kills a teacher and three children is insane. If Stella cannot comprehend the fundamental difference of intent between a killing for love and a killing to "make them pay" then she is obviously a very damaged individual in urgent need of some serious counseling (something I might add that the husband in this tragedy obviously required but wasn't getting).I get that murder is wrong in any circumstances (whether it be state sanctioned or not) and I strongly wish the man had been in touch with Beyond Blue, Lifeline or any of a number of organisations that could have helped provide a more rational perspective. The point here is that there was a social failure as much as anything else in that no-one recognised what was happening to the father with his mental breakdown and Stella isn't helping by dismissing his side of the story. Not many parents wake up one day and just decide to kill their entire family and themselves - it speaks of an amazing level of distress and suffering which Stella dismisses as unimportant.Stella's outright denial of any suffering on behalf of the husband and father is sickening. Any human being placed in a continuous situation of suffering with a limited opportunity for escape (sometimes called torture) will over time take whatever opportunities they perceive to be available. In this case a man killed his wife and the children he loved before ending his own life.Research shows (one of Stella's favourite lines) that most people "attempt" suicide - they don't really want to die what they want is help. They want someone - anyone - to recognise them and their problems.In Stella's world view half the population is not eligible for any sympathy should they happen to suffer from a mental illness. I sincerely hope no father in serious distress reads Stella's article because her views would only serve to exacerbate feelings of isolation and the concern for loved ones should they (the parent) be gone. The consequences of such feelings (no matter how irrational they are) have been demonstrated with tragic consequences.

ghoul:

16 Sep 2014 1:52:17pm

To put it bluntly he should have killed himself if this was the only course to take and that would have been the end of it. And a remarkable woman and three innocent children who had incredible lives ahead of them could have gone on.

brigitte jones:

16 Sep 2014 1:59:56pm

While a suicide murder is the most negative wrong choice, Stella is wrong in her view of claimng that acknowleding the womans disability is victim blaming, a put down of disabled persons in general. Brain injuries often can cause damage in interpersonal relating though recovery in practical functioning may occur to a point. A spouse may overtime find that life with that person becomes distressing and realise some aspects of a spouses personality won't ever improve.The spouse can become extremely depressed, overwhelmed, distraught if the spouses reactions are additionally negative for the children. Furthermore, if he accepts the view if he were to leave that spouse who is reliant on him and is needing her children to sustain her connectedness, he would seem to be a cruel bastard, plus probably could not afford to divorce and set up again with his kids. Can't see leaving on his own and leaving the kids to her limited coping relating ways either. It results in feeling trapped in a hell where death seems the only feasible way out, with no further suffering for wife, kids and self. To protect other families in similar situations, it has been important that those who knew more about the family did acknowledge the impact if the woman's disability were a likely contributing factor. It is not victim blaming, but giving recognition to potential stress factors in that kind of scene, that kind of impairment. That's so to better recognise the issues that need to be addressed in support and mental health care for the family member trying too hard on their own until perspective is lost.I admire Stella for her strength in battling her personal disability and love of her own life, but I do think it's time that Stella had the courage to become properly informed about other disabilities if she wants to be seen as a credible and effective advocate of disabilities in general. Otherwise Stella ought to shut up and keep to advocating in just her and very similar types of physical impairments. At present Stella sounds like she has the maturity of a primary school student advocating on disabilities.

mark:

16 Sep 2014 2:02:04pm

I was horrified by this story and the complete certainty of the author as to the facts. Do we know that the husband killed his wife and three children. We do know that he took his own life, but it less certain by whose hand the children and wife died, possibly/probably by his hand, but not certainly there are other possibilities. Perhaps one should await the coroners report before using these events to comment on what a terrible curse is domestic violence.

sutho:

16 Sep 2014 2:08:43pm

I am stunned that a man can take 4 lives of people who were not a threat to him, who were trusting him with their safety, who loved him and were led by him, can be in any way defended. If he has a mental health issue that is completely separate. Until this society makes the measurement of this kind of crime as unspeakable like the most vile of murders then unstable men may see this as a viable option. If there was a unique circumstance in this case that may be revealed, but if our first cry is not horror before justification then we are lost as a society. We cannot justify murder of innocents for any reason.

BJ:

16 Sep 2014 2:44:20pm

Society already views these types of events as unspeakably horrible. Some of us seek to understand how this could possibly happen and stress, resulting from the car crash is the most plausible explaination.

Fred:

16 Sep 2014 2:58:01pm

No one is condoning the murder of innocents, but I take exception to Stella using hearsay from a particular recent case to bolster her arguments, such as they are, before the full facts of the case are known; and also by making unsubstantiated generalisations about society somehow being more accepting of murder when the victim is disabled. You may be stunned that a person can carry out such murders, but you don't know the full facts of the case cited. And, by the way, although men may be the main perpetrators of family murders, there are cases where women have aided and abetted and committed child murders, and murders of innocents.

Maureen:

chris:

Sue:

16 Sep 2014 4:26:43pm

"Kim Hunt and her children Fletcher, 10, Mia, eight and Phoebe, six were found shot to death at their Watch Hill farmhouse."

"Police divers recovered the body of doting husband and father Geoff Hunt, 44, from a dam on the family?s property the following day along with a shotgun. A suicide note containing no more than two lines ? and as many clues ? was found hours later."

Goodness to M.E.:

This action of 1 person is nothing more and nothing less than murder and calling it domestic violence in my opinion is another way society desensitises this inexcusable action.

Spare a thought for what the news headlines and story content would have been if the family was Muslim. (Another opportunity for racist and hate mongering)?

Too often society 'labels' unacceptable and adherent behaviour like this to dismiss it because we are usually dealing with women and children victims.

When this country demonstrates respect and treats these 'family' killings in the same manner as an Australian Soldier who dies/killed overseas in war, maybe then all Australian lives will be valued equally?

Karl:

16 Sep 2014 3:42:09pm

I think it would really facilitate more effective communication if the media (and indeed the entire internet!) could decide on a standard definition of words and phrases like 'excuse,' 'reason,' 'deserved,' 'blame,' 'fault,' and especially 'victim,' 'target,' 'survivor,' and 'offender.' The terms get bandied about without definition and a host of conflicts and debates ensue. If you stayed up all night smoking crack and playing xbox, and slept through the day instead of going to work, and you told your boss exactly why; s/he would say that's a 'reason' but not an 'excuse.' It still remains a reason though. I think many people confuse these two terms. Oscar May have been depressed and unsupported - it's not an excuse for the violence he wielded, but it is still a reason. Other than defence lawyers(!), I experience most people discussing reasons in order to come to terms with understanding the situation, and not, as often as is claimed, as an attempt to justify of ameliorate someone's behaviour. If only people would pause more and ask "what exactly do you mean when you say that?" I hope we can refine our language so we can refine our understanding of violence and thereby prevent these devastating atrocities :(

David Kay:

16 Sep 2014 4:03:46pm

If we could get rid of all the political ideology - entirely bereft of evidence - that people like yourself peddle, then perhaps we might have a chance of doing something about violence. But while we insist on viewing the problem through the blinkers of ideology, women are going to keep getting killed.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but people are driven primarily by their emotional state. Refusing to even consider factors like mental illness, or even emotional stress, in cases of violence simply enables further violence and puts you in collusion with the perpetrators.

Feinthearted:

16 Sep 2014 4:04:42pm

As the mother of a son who committed suicide 15 months ago, I am appalled by Stella's and some posters' points of view. You would think we haven't had a discussion about mental illness until now. Suicide is not usually a choice but the loss of rationality once stressors become ungovernable.

Think of someone juggling successfully 10 balls in the air and you throw in one more. When this happens usually all balls get dropped.

Up until my son's suicide I wouldn't have believed such a caring, kind hearted decent, community minded person could do what he had done. I've learnt so much more since. People have told me of their own issues and how they contemplated, whilst within that last darkness, taking their children with them. They often saw it as protection of the loved ones. They didn't feel they could leave them in what they perceived was an unendurable place.

The guilt those people feel now is tremendous and they have to live with it forever.

Why is it when someone is physically injured we quick to help but if we're mentally injured no one wants to know, but is oh so quick to apportion blame? Does it make one feel better to be oh, so superior and stand in judgment of those we perceive as weaker?

I'd suggest everyone who cannot try and see all sides of this tragedy have a closer look inside.

David Kay:

Orion:

16 Sep 2014 4:29:42pm

Unfortunately this is a dreadfully misguided article by someone who has no understanding whatsoever of this tragedy. The domestic violence is, so far as I know, not supported by any evidence whatsoever prior to the event in fact if anything the reports suggest the opposite. Then to use this as some kind of vehicle for a disability agenda is astonishing.

This type of murder-suicide involving an entire family is mercifully rare, but it does happen from time to time. There is no single explanation for it, but the possible explanations are very few and most are inconsistent with what has been reported about this man and his family. I have no information about what happened except what is reported in the media but I guarantee that the overwhelmingly most likely explanation for this was that the man was suffering from a severe depressive illness. That is an explanation and not an excuse by the way, and is the same reason why many of the women who kill their children do it, because this kind of depression is just as common in women as men but the circumstances under which it develops may differ.

If this is true it is doubly a tragedy that it was not recognised and treated in time because treatment is most effective in more severe depressive illnesses.

Tomarrah:

Nobody knows what the inside of a marriage is like except those in it.

Both sides have merit.

We don't know where the man found himself or what state of mind he was in or who exactly were those disabled when it happened. People in a right state of mind don't kill their children.

Alternatively what excuse can be made for some person to take it upon themselves to set themselves up as the arbiter of whether others should live or die? None that I can see. We do not live in a country where the family gets thrown into dickensian debtors prisons - well not yet anyway ( who knows what "reform" Queensland will think up next week after all).

There is a third point which is to turn it into a gender issue is ludicrous. There is no evil that men commit that women do not also. Turning a tragedy into a hobby horse just disrespects everyone from the victims to the readers.

peter:

16 Sep 2014 6:00:40pm

Perhaps he was a loving husband and father who snapped. Perhaps he really was a pillar of the community. Perhaps he lived in a conservative community where men are considered weak if they ask for help. That should never be an excuse for violence.It should also never be acceptable to accuse him of being a violent man behind closed doors, with not a scrap of evidence to support it. It is easy to blame the dead, Stella.

Louise Alston:

CJD:

16 Sep 2014 6:23:20pm

The long and the short of it, more funding, support and community education and services are required for those with disabilities and carers. If this sort of story doesn't make this obvious, I don't know what will. Makes me feel so angry.

DannyS:

16 Sep 2014 6:35:13pm

Stella, sorry, but what rubbish!

I don't think that you can rightly assume that the greater population regard the murder of someone with a disability as less than horrendous just because locals are quoted as saying what a nice man the murderer was.

You're in the media and you must know that your confreres NEVER print or put the whole story before the public.

You referred to a quote....

"He was super, super patient. He would help her get out of the car, he would hold her arm. You couldn't get a better bloke. The most gentle, considerate bloke ... a pillar of society."

But is that all the interviewee said? Let's just suppose that they went on to say....."Or so we thought. We didn't realise was a sick, monstrous man he was to commit such a terrible crime."

And anyway, I don't believe for a moment that a 'close family friend' was quoted. No doubt it was conjured out of thin air by the reporter.

Pete:

16 Sep 2014 6:47:28pm

Stella makes some good points, but to co-opt this tragedy before being apprised of all the circumstances is completely inappropriate. We simply do not know the background at this stage, and it's a bit gruesome to use it as a barrow to make (legitimate) points about domestic violence. It's an article that uses unfounded or unknown premises to introduce its case and the fact these involve a suicide and triple homicide makes it somewhat tacky in my view.

paulinadelaide:

16 Sep 2014 6:56:11pm

Gee a few long bows been drawn in this piece.I haven't been following the details but I'd suggest for a start he's "suspected" of killing his family - no doubt an inquest will occur.His wife may have been disabled but the kids so afr as I know were not.People who knew him and the family have every right to be both supportive and confused by his suspected actions.You could conclude that his apparent mental state was in itself a disablity but I have many concerns about the current plague of mental illness. Funny how throwing money at something makes it grow.As the murder trial of Pistorius shows it's best to have sound evidence before accusing anyone of anything. In the Pistorius case you either accept he knew his partner was in the toilet, or accept there was, let's face it, a black criminal in there (and if there was the reaction would be an interesting read on Sth Africa), or accept the guy has found a perfect alibi, or accept his mother should have comforted him (what a crazy notion - no doubt from the now well funded mental illness brigade).I suspect in Hunt's case, loving fathers & husbands can have problems, maybe those problems in his case have nothing to do with his wife having a disability, nor him having a mental illness.

Sue:

Melissa Wall:

16 Sep 2014 8:44:11pm

No, Stella, we should not "find ourselves a little less horrified" because the wife had an acquired brain injury. Why would you even put that comment in your story as if to justify it in even the smallest, most microscopic measure?

I understand that the rest of your post condemns Mr Hunt in his murder of his family. However, as a member of the media (who has more influence over society in general, including the multitudes who have read this post, as a result of this inexcusable tragedy) why would you even ALLUDE to the fact that this man could be justified in his actions - did his children also have ABI's? Did they also deserve to die at his hands?

I know you didn't mean to, but far out, there are so many ignorant people already, who believe that disability or an impairment of some sort, somehow makes someone less human or less deserving of our compassion, why would you add fuel to the fire?

There are enough people I speak to in everyday life that are ignorant of the struggle of people with disabilities, without you piling on, albeit in a small (very public) way. Come on, you are obviously paid enough money to have a considered opinion and to think about the way your comments might reflect upon, or influence others.

jogg:

16 Sep 2014 9:13:39pm

I haven't read all the appended comments already posted, but have read the original article.

I grew up in a rural setting with a father who abused alcohol intermittently and also practised high-level domestic violence regularly. between these episodes he was a fantastic man and we were very close; a hyper-intense bitter-sweet dynamic. my mother and I were physically abused, and nearly killed, more than once - my three little sisters were not directly abused (but obviously have suffered from the well-documented fallout).

when I was thirteen, I convinced my mother we had to leave in order to survive. thankfully we did escape (penniless and destitute).

a week or two after this (quite brave) escape, my father blew his head off with a shotgun in my bedroom..

I have worked for over thirty years in several medical specialties and have had the privilege to try to help some of the more vulnerable folk in our community.

I now see, through being better able to understand and help others, something positive from the suffering everyone in my family went through - then and since.

I see, and feel, the consequences of being a "victim" of DV and I also see my father's suicide as the culmination of the harm that a perpetrator's deeds do to the perpetrator themselves: there are NO winners in the DV game. Again, I say, "There are NO winners in the DV game".

The comments in the article that heads this thread of comments strikes profound discord for me on several points. I do not want to go into a detailed appraisal of them all. I commend the author's passionate disapproval of DV but the judgemental aspects and the drawing of a parallel with the Oscar Pistorius trial etc suggest to me a profound ignorance of the depth and breadth of this huge social problem.

Vivienne:

16 Sep 2014 9:49:29pm

This article is disappointing Stella- not to your usual standard. Without specific reference to the 'research' you are paraphrasing you are grossly stereotyping rural men and women. Very unhelpful, and too generalised to be truly thought provoking.

Noel Conway:

16 Sep 2014 9:57:38pm

If someone is suffering depression and they want to end it all, then that is their decision and they have every right to do so.

But to murder your wife and children before you take your own life is cowardly in the extreme, and is a reflection of the patriarchal society where men think their wives and children are possessions, and if they can't have them then no-one can.

Murder suicide is most often committed by the man, and it is a cop out, it is murder, it is just a pity they can't spend the rest of their sad pitiful lives in jail reflecting on what they have done.

There is no excuse for taking the life of another. The lives of three beautiful innocent children have been brutally taken, along with a wife whose only fault was to get born into a male dominated world.

To suggest that this man is less guilty because his wife had a disability is abhorrent int he extreme. He could have walked away. He could have done many things. His weakness resulted int he death of five people, four of whom were utterly innocent.

It is the nature of the patriarchal society, that commodifies women and children, that is at the root of this type of murder suicide, it is a blatant disregard for human life and puts the interests of the man above the interests of the woman and children. It is despicable.

Jenny Chapman:

16 Sep 2014 10:09:11pm

As a psychologist who did a thesis on 'Parents Resposible for the Death of their Children' and then having clients who murdered/ suicided, I would love to bring more understanding to what is occurring, and why. Every time I see speculative journalism around this i get frustrated with regard to the damage it does to our understanding of the human Psych. One size doesn't fit all! I would love to share the experiences of doing my thesis and the case of my clients. It's so unlikely to do such a radical thesis and then to have it occur in practice.

David Stanley:

17 Sep 2014 1:05:03am

Mmm Not sure I agree that anyone or media coverage made the crime out to be less bad because of the disability. People suggesting possible reasons for it is very different from arguing that such reasons are reasonable or lessen the crime in any way. Sure, his wife's accident may well have contributed to him loosing it. I don't think anyone is arguing that this makes the crime less horrific. For me, it makes it even worse and the victim more vulnerable.

STB:

17 Sep 2014 7:57:54am

Two major factors are ignored ;

a) an ordinary household and any number of carers for a severely disabled person are not equipped to cope and deal with the emotional, physical, and financial burden of caring long term for a disabled person- and many households break up over this,

b) there is not enough public facilities to cope with these sorts of injured people, the old and dying, and the mentally disabled

c) the medical profession and drug industry want to keep everyone alive at any cost and any means even when there is no actual "living happening" but being on various types of life support - which is not living.

d) because of personal experiences in all of the above it is about time voluntary euthanasia, living wills, and public education about the reality TO carers who regularly destroy their own lives in the process of "caring" due to guilt ??? and then create the next wave of victims should be publicized .

Grandma:

17 Sep 2014 8:24:08am

We'll probably never know exactly what happened in this case because their are no survivors to tell the tale. But it doesn't seem to me to have been a "snap." I think there would have been some degree of forethought and planning involved, and that makes it domestic murder of innocents unable to defend themselves in any way.

Marisa:

17 Sep 2014 8:16:52am

As horrific as these events are, we need greater understanding of why they happen. This is the only way we can hopefully prevent them happening in the future.I don't think people feel more or less horrified because the victim had a disability. Horrified is not the right work. I feel deeply saddened. Geoff Hunt and others like him are psychologically sick to have done such a thing. We need to find out more about what is behind it.I think the surmise that his wife's disability caused Geoff Hunt some stress and strain is a search for answers not an attempt to excuse what he did.One of the main issues in our society is that when men have emotional issues they feel that they can't discuss them with anybody.I know someone who recently took his own life unexpectedly. Not even his wife of 37 years saw it coming. You just have to ask 'why?'. Why didn't he talk to someone? Is it so taboo in our society for a man to talk about personal issues?

Features

Former treasurer Wayne Swan says that real private sector wages have grown by just 1 per cent under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, which he says equates to only one year of growth under the previous Labor government.